Hi all, I am working on getting a better grasp on what data we have in the RIS project from RIPE. To this end, I am checking the export policies of the ASes peering with RIPE AS12654 at different IXPs. I am wondering if anybody knows what these ASes actually announce to the RIPE repositories? Do they dump their entire routing tables (including their internal routes) ? 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? Another type of export policy is for example 'to AS12654: ANNOUNCE AS "YYY" '(where "YYY" is any AS peering with RIPE in the RIS project). How is this policy different from the previous one from the point of view of the routing feed the RIPE repository receives? Thank you for your help! Best regards, Andra
On 19/01/2012 11:24, andra.lutu@imdea.org wrote:
I am working on getting a better grasp on what data we have in the RIS project from RIPE. To this end, I am checking the export policies of the ASes peering with RIPE AS12654 at different IXPs. I am wondering if anybody knows what these ASes actually announce to the RIPE repositories? Do they dump their entire routing tables (including their internal routes) ? 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? Another type of export policy is for example 'to AS12654: ANNOUNCE AS "YYY" '(where "YYY" is any AS peering with RIPE in the RIS project). How is this policy different from the previous one from the point of view of the routing feed the RIPE repository receives?
Hi Andra, INEX used to maintain two peering matrices. One was based on RIPE IRRDB data; the other was based on netflow/sflow BGP data sampled from the IXP infrastructure. The difference between the two was shocking. Nick
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. 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. randy
On Jan 19, 2012, at 7:52 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
of course, taking anything from the IRR literally is naïve at best.
Unfortunately, if the BGPSEC, RPKI and SIDR work stays course in the IETF, we're still going to need IRR-esque policy capabilities (outside of route server and prefix origin bindings in that work), so we best starting figuring out how to make them suck less.
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.
I agree, it's important to analyze systemic cost/benefit and complexity analysis and new operational impacts various standards work is introducing. -danny
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
Hi Randy, Thank you for your reply. I do, however, have one more question, please find it bellow. links, loopbacks, ...
What would be then the difference between this ANNOUNCE ANY policy and this other policy I have found "ANNOUNCE AS-YYY" (where AS YYY is the AS exporting its routes)? What are the ASes actually exporting in this case?
of course, taking anything from the IRR literally is naïve at best.
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.
randy
Best regards, Andra
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
Please don't conflate the policy mechanisms enabled by the IRR policy *language*/specification itself with the *data* contained in the IRR
i don't. the former is called rpsl.
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?
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-grow-collection-communities-08
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.
but not orthogonal to the op's direct question. randy
-----Original Message----- From: Peter Kristolaitis [mailto:alter3d@alter3d.ca] Sent: 19 January 2012 16:04 To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: RIS raw data
On 12-01-19 10:46 AM, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 21:52:52 +0900, Randy Bush said:
uselessness, with more crap welded on to it than envisioned in mad max. oooh... steampunk BGP. ;)
The Internet is like a series of (steam) tubes? ;)
- Peter
When they break, do you see little clouds of 1s and 0s ? -- Leigh ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com ______________________________________________________________________
From nanog-bounces+bonomi=mail.r-bonomi.com@nanog.org Thu Jan 19 10:06:17 2012 Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 11:01:13 -0500 From: Peter Kristolaitis <alter3d@alter3d.ca> To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: RIS raw data
On 12-01-19 10:46 AM, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 21:52:52 +0900, Randy Bush said:
uselessness, with more crap welded on to it than envisioned in mad max. oooh... steampunk BGP. ;)
The Internet is like a series of (steam) tubes? ;)
It is widely known that some people _do_ let off a lot of steam via that mechanism. *chuckle*
participants (9)
-
andra.lutu＠imdea.org -
Danny McPherson -
Leigh Porter -
Nick Hilliard -
Peter Kristolaitis -
Randy Bush -
Robert Bonomi -
Shane Amante -
Valdis.Kletnieks＠vt.edu