Home page logo

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: Route Registry: who uses them?
From: "Kevin Oberman" <oberman () es net>
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 16:21:23 -0700

Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 14:39:01 -0700
From: "Todd Caine" <todd_caine () eli net>
Sender: owner-nanog () merit edu

I've been talking with our router geeks and we have been
debating over the usefulness of route registries.  We were
asked recently on an application for peering if we consult
RADB, and our response was, "We have used it although it's
not up to date; Why do you use it?", and we received no
response.  In my experience, I've never heard of any cases
where it has been used.

OK. We use it. If you peer with ESnet you must register routes or we
will not accept them. If you wonder why, ask Randy Bush. (He has made
the pitch for prefix filtering at several NANOG meetings.) I might
mention that the AS707 goof had no impact on us because of this

Beyond this, the peering agreement with at least one major network
mandates that you register routes if you want to peer with them and
that you filter. 

That all said, we do not filter several major providers for practical
reasons. These include UUnet, SprintLink and PSInet.

Who should use Route Registries?  Why?

Anyone who peers at public peering points. If you have customers who
want to reach any of our sites (and these include most of the major US
Government research laboratories), you need to register or use one of
the big transit providers which we don't filter.

On a more pragmatic level, it provides information to troubleshooting
failures. If a customer reports that he can't reach and it's
not registered, it takes a LOT longer to figure out who to call to
resolve the problem.

Is it worth the time?

The time is pretty minimal as long as you don't get behind. It's just
a standard part of setting up a new prefix in our network. Takes only
a couple of minutes.
Do people trust that the information is accurate enough to
let a route server automate establishing your peering
sessions?  Is there a limit to the detail that you should

Yes. We do many peerings with providers via the route servers
with good results. The only problem is when a provider stops
registering his nets and RA peers can't get there.

Detail? All you REALLY need is an AS macro defining what ASes you
provide transit for, a maintainer object to allow updates to other
objects, an inet-rtr object telling the route servers who
to talk to and whether to add the RS AS to the path or not, and a
record for each prefix you announce. The aut-num object is a good
idea, but I don't use it to generate policy, so I don't really care if
it is there. I use it most for troubleshooting. Since we are
non-commercial, we are probably more willing than most to disclose the
details of our peerings.

I've looked at some of the information that other providers
have put in the route registry, but nothing really seemed
all that useful to us.  Would anyone agree or disagree?

It's useful to me and my organization.

Am I missing something here?

I think so.

R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer
Energy Sciences Network (ESnet)
Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab)
E-mail: oberman () es net                       Phone: +1 510 486-8634

  By Date           By Thread  

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