On Jan 30, 2006, at 5:02 AM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 09:48:13AM +0000, Michael.Dillon@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*