On Jan 19, 2012, at 5:52 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
In some cases I saw the export policy ANNOUNCE ANY, is this consistent with a particular AS behaving like the RIPE AS was its customer?
well, if i was to take that literally, that would include internal prefixes, e.g. some of p2p inter-router links, loopbacks, ...
of course, taking anything from the IRR literally is naïve at best.
Please don't conflate the policy mechanisms enabled by the IRR policy *language*/specification itself with the *data* contained in the IRR ...
some years back, i asked for a *simple minimal* tagging of announcements to route views, just peer, customer, internal. it got ietfed to utter uselessness, with more crap welded on to it than envisioned in mad max.
Wrt your last paragraph: care to share a link the I-D (or, RFC) that you allude to above? I think your last paragraph is alluding to tagging routes with standard BGP communities, based on your "simple minimal" criteria, before they are sent to route-views. That strikes me as potentially orthogonal to issues with the present data in the IRR. -shane