Re: Has PSI been assigned network 1?
Is PGP secure enough for you?
Secure _telnet_.
RIPE-181; it's different.
Not that much. I used RIPE-81 as a generic name. In general case routing policies which can be implemented by border routers _cannot_ be implemented in a central box interfacing those border boxes -- simply because those boxes may have (and do have) exterior peering sessions on other links/LANs. A large part of routing policies (particularly between US and Europe) is implemented as intricate interior weighting systems between announcements from different sides. Whoever wants to play with it can have our ICM-DC-1 configuration, just to try to represent what it does in RIPE-181 format.
Without that i do not see RADB being successful or useful beyond the point of filtering updates from particularly obnoxious peers.
Which is already a big win, seeing as how there are a good number of particularly obnoxious peers out there, some of them quite large.
I have to ask if you have actually looked at the RADB and surrounding pieces at all.
I've read papers abour RADB. They're not very clear on many issues. In any case, my point is that RADB has to be provider-friendly to be successful. --vadim
In message <199504192303.TAA20617@titan.sprintlink.net>, Vadim Antonov writes:
Is PGP secure enough for you?
Secure _telnet_.
Oh come on now. Both support an strongly encrypted form of authentication.
RIPE-181; it's different.
Not that much. I used RIPE-81 as a generic name. In general case routing policies which can be implemented by border routers _cannot_ be implemented in a central box interfacing those border boxes -- simply because those boxes may have (and do have) exterior peering sessions on other links/LANs. A large part of routing policies (particularly between US and Europe) is implemented as intricate interior weighting systems between announcements from different sides.
Yes.. The protocols support LOCAL_PREF and MED. RIPE-181 has cost, perf applied on a per peering seesion basis and support for MED.
Whoever wants to play with it can have our ICM-DC-1 configuration, just to try to represent what it does in RIPE-181 format.
You really need to look at your AS as a whole, not just one config file. It isn't a one to one translation to Cisco configs. But sure. Send it anyway (but not to the list).
In any case, my point is that RADB has to be provider-friendly to be successful.
They are trying to be provider friendly.
--vadim
Curtis
participants (2)
-
Curtis Villamizar -
Vadim Antonov