but, why wouldn't something like formally requiring customers/peers/transits/etc to have radb objects as a 'requirement' for peering/customer bgp services
'Cause there ain't nobody out there to "formally require" this. Other than ISPs, of course. And that means there will be umpteen different sets of rules, one set for each ISP.
if you are a new customer and you sign up for bgp, it is clearly stated in the contract, the customer/provider requesting this service must maintain objects radb..
In that case, no problem. But what about the contracts that do NOT state this? Who will change them? What language will they use? Who will coordinate the changes so that there is something halfway consistent? This is the problem Randy refers to when he talks about formal rigour.
if larger networks adapted to something like this, i think people would start to follow, as they would have no choice because they would be cut off from certain routes
Larger peers started this way back about 15 years ago. Very few followed suit. What makes you think this will change? Operationally, the Internet is an anarchy. There is no formal organization of network providers that will set up working groups to define best practices in routing, in peering, etc. Instead, we have some areas where there *ARE* organizations applying formal rigor like email with MAAWG but that only happens with the real hot button issues. Everything else is left to simmer away in the anarchy. In Europe, the network operators that are also in the telecoms business, formed an organization called ETSI http://www.etsi.org to address a whole raft of inter-operator issues primarily focused on standards. There is no good reason why operators with Internet transit businesses should not form a similar organization to tackle the problems that come back again and again on the NANOG list, with only half measure and short term bandaid fixes being developed. You will note, that when ETSI was formed there was already an international telecom standards organization in operation called the ITU. But it had issues, and so folks went off and set up something that was more workable. When will NANOG participants smell the coffee and do likewise? The FCC will not rescue you. --Michael Dillon