Home page logo
/

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: PRDB retirement (and note about AS690 advisories)
From: Steve Heimlich <heimlich () ans net>
Date: Tue, 02 May 1995 12:48:33 -0400

Alan,

I am not sure that nanog is the right place for this, since it affects
folk outside North America.

True, but I couldn't think of a better list.  

On Tue, 2 May 1995, Steve Heimlich wrote:
New registered prefixes will assume the current majority policy toward
the home AS in which they're registered.

What if the current majority policy for that AS is that most nets did not
have NSFNet routing, and are announced to ANS via the CIX?  It might make
more sense to exclude non-NSFNet routes when determining the majority
policy. 

This will take some time to clean up.  See below...

Many folk have routes that did not have NSFNet routing and that were
announced to ANS via the CIX (with aslist 1:1957).  What should be done
with those?  Should we send in new NACRs to change the aslist? 

Well, the best thing I can think of is 1) we get rid of metric:as
lists and 2) we modify our aut-num object on a per-AS basis to
clean out exceptions like these routed only via the CIX, so that
we route to them via major interchange points (MAE-East, Sprint
NAP, MAE-West, Pac Bell NAP, ...).  We probably don't want to do
this until we axe the metric:as lists (so that we just do it once,
on an AS-basis).

Some non-NSFnet aggregates contain more-specific routes that do (or
rather, did) have NSFNet routing.  How soon can we withdraw the
more-specifics?  I fear that bad things will happen if we withdraw the
more-specifics without first changing the aslist on the aggregate. 

In theory, immediately, though I agree that we should clean up/remove
the advisories first as the more conservative approach while getting
routing right for the aggregates.  I'd hate to change all of those
since I know they're going away Real Soon.

How will ANS's new routing policy affect the peering between ANS and the
CIX?  Is it still prohibited for ANS to hear the same route both through
the CIX and through a non-CIX connection?  Should CIX members send in
new NACRs that include as1957 in aslists where it was not previously
included, or will ANS figure out something suitable without needing a
lot of new NACRs?

We'll figure out something suitable and try to avoid metric:aslist
shifts -- not overnight, but as part of this whole process of
rationalizing policy.  As I mentioned above, the most conservative
approach will be to knock off ASes for which we have partial routing
through the CIX one at a time.

Steve



  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]