Re: Has PSI been assigned network 1?
There is no intention of "replacing distributed computation" with this. Do not confuse the Routing Registry with Route Servers.
Routing Registry w/o means to enforce won't be able to keep a resemblance of accurate data (not with the modus operandi of most providers in US). The only feasible way to enforce it now is to use RS. RS does not support policies we need now. Hence it will be used for a very limited set of applications. Ergo, most of data in RR will be inaccurate and out of date.
Although the registry "box is not controlled by the service providers", the content is!
If RS breaks down and takes my operations with it what my management going to say? "Could the network work without it?" "Yes." "Then take it away from our configurations NOW!" --vadim
Vadim,
RS does not support policies we need now.
I'd be interested to know what policies that you needed now which the RS does not support or will not support in the near future. We have been working with NSPs/ISPs including SPRINTLINK to set up peer sessions with the RS (the two RS's at mae-east is BGP peering with 11 ISP/NSPs, exchanging routes among five ASs), to identify their needs and to make the RS meet the needs if RS does not have the function. So far, we only identified one minor feature which one of the ASs wanted and we are in the process add it in the RS software. Please be careful to make distinction of: a. the capability of the RS b. the capability of the RADB in terms of allowing you register your policy c. the correctness of the routes registered in IRR including RADB, RIPE, MCIDB, etc. By the way, is your above comments related to the one you made about RIPE-181 of not enabling you to register your policy with ASpath expression ? We actually looked at your policy (thanks to Sean who shared Sprintlink's current policy with us) along with that of other ISPs. The RADB is extended to allow the expression of routing policy in terms of AS path which is lacking in RIPE-181 and which could be used to describe your policy. --Jessica
Vadim Antonov <avg@sprint.net> writes:
Routing Registry w/o means to enforce won't be able to keep a resemblance of accurate data (not with the modus operandi of most providers in US).
We fundamentally disagree here. I agree that the more the RR is used for actual configurations, the better the data will be. I disagree that "enforcement" is necessary. I disagree that "enforcement" by RS is necessary. I observe that reasonable quality data can be gathered even when the only incentive is good citizenship and nice diagnostic tools. Daniel
participants (3)
-
Daniel Karrenberg -
Jessica Yu -
Vadim Antonov