mailing list archives
Re: Lazy Engineers and Viable Excuses
From: Steve Carter <scarter () pobox com>
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 09:30:09 -0700
* Richard A Steenbergen said:
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 10:10:57AM -0400, Leo Bicknell wrote:
In a message written on Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 09:55:30AM -0400, Jared Mauch wrote:
Yes, it is that hard. Sadly, almost everyone I see push the IRR
works for a small ISP. And at least half of those work for a small
ISP in Europe.
C&W, Level3, Global Crossing and NTT/Verio are small isps?
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but they all use the IRR to filter
customers. That's a fine application of the IRR, and one I encourage.
I don't think any of them use the IRR to filter peers. Indeed, I
can provde they don't filter certian big peers due to the fact they
don't register thier routes at all. :)
Global Crossing doesn't use the IRR to filter their BGP speaking
customers, every prefix-list update gets touched by a human. While their
response time is good, and they're generally friendly people, they do have
a tendancy to prove that they are human by forgetting or typoing a random
route with nearly every other update. When you start getting into the
hundreds of routes, personally I will go through the trouble to maintain
IRR entries any day vs letting humans break stuff.
As is usual with most things, it's not black and white. It's a sticky
position that some major providers find themselves in. A lot of customers
do not maintain their IRR objects or even have them at all. The traction
would have to come from the provider themselves in a lot of cases, but
then customers are apt to complain when a major provider registers 'their'
routes on an IRR ... kinda like a dog peeing on a hydrant, some customers
tend to think registration means a kind of ownership claim.