So -- what did happen to Panix?

Wed Feb 1 20:49:07 UTC 2006

On Jan 30, 2006, at 5:02 AM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:

>
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 09:48:13AM +0000,  
> Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com wrote:
>>
>>>> Wouldn't a well-operated network of IRRs used by 95% of
>>>> network operators be able to meet all three of your
>>>> requirements?
>>>
>>> We have such a database (used by Verio and others), but the Panix
>> incident
>>> happened anyway due to bit rot.  We've got to find a way to fix the
>> layer 8
>>> problems before we can make improvements at layer 3.
>>
>> If an IRR suffers from bit-rot, then I don't consider
>> it to be "well-operated" and therefore it cannot be
>> considered to be part of a well-operated network of
>> IRRs.
>>
>> The point is that the tools exist. The failing is in
>> how those tools are managed. In other words this is
>> an operational problem on both the scale of a single
>> IRR and on the scale of the IRR system. Is this
>> what you mean by a "layer 8" problem?
>
> Take it up with the people putting data into the system, not the IRR
> operators. Anyone who is behind an IRR-based provider (like Verio) has
> motivation to put data into the system ("hey look I do this and now
> routing works"), but there is no motivation to take stale data OUT  
> of the
> system.

It gets even more fun if you're delegating route-origination to 3rd  
parties.
Add a mnt-routes: so they can create a route object, but then you  
can't remove that inetnum block whilst their route object exists (nor  
remove the mnt-routes).

*sigh*