Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 15:30:32 -0700
From: "Vandy Hamidi" <vandy.hamidi@markettools.com>
Sender: owner-nanog@merit.edu
Our new ISP is asking that I create a maintainer object in the RADB and
associated AS/Routes for us to be about to eBGP peer.
This is the first time I've been asked by a provider to do this for
something as simple as peering to advertise a couple /24's.
I've peered with ATT, Sprint, UUnet, Qwest, Savvis, SBC, and Internap in
the past and never had to do anything but have a valid ASN provided by
ARIN.
Is this just so they can dynamically build their prefix/as-path lists?
Why would I need to do this and what advantages are there. Cost to
register with RADB is $250/year and I want to understand it before I
shell out.
You need to have routes registered in the IRR, but not necessarily the
RADB. The RADB is only a part of the IRR. Many larger ISPs and NSPs
run their own registries and there are several international
registries including APNIC and RIPE. There has been at least one free
database out there. I just don't remember the URL. (It's in the
archives, but the search may be painful.)
I strongly approve of such requirement. I know that it is in the peering
agreements of several carriers, but they often don't check or enforce
this. Many register customer routes and ASes. If routes and policies
were properly registered, securing the Internet would be a lot closer
to being possible.
I strongly approve of such requirement. I know that it is in the peering
agreements of several carriers, but they often don't check or enforce
this. Many register customer routes and ASes. If routes and policies
were properly registered, securing the Internet would be a lot closer
to being possible.
Is it safe to assume (now) that all the routes one would care to listen to
(under normal circumstances)
are registered in an IRR now? I remember there used to be well-known issues
with some networks, especially internationally.
Deepak Jain
AiNET
I dunno, there are plenty of smaller ASes who have yet to be forced to
register their routes.
We haven't yet been forced, but I finally got motivated to submit them to
altdb last night. Altdb definitely rocks.
Andy
>
> > I strongly approve of such requirement. I know that it is in
the peering
> > agreements of several carriers, but they often don't check or enforce
> > this. Many register customer routes and ASes. If routes and policies
> > were properly registered, securing the Internet would be a lot closer
> > to being possible.
>
> Is it safe to assume (now) that all the routes one would care
to listen to
> (under normal circumstances)
> are registered in an IRR now? I remember there used to be
well-known issues
> with some networks, especially internationally.
I dunno, there are plenty of smaller ASes who have yet to be forced to
register their routes.
Of some importance, yes, definitely, since at least some actors (including
Teleglobe, my home) tend to recurse on AS-set when building filters... so
unless registrered all the way down/up, filtered... which, by the way, is
a good moment/reason to help those "smaller ASes" go register (rather than
patching/proxying for them).
Cheers,
mh
Back when I got PI space in 1998, there were definitely some backbones
ignoring routes not found in the IRR. I wonder if they gave up, or people
just don't notice them anymore.
They must have either given up or had default routes, because we've been
PI since 99, and I've never once had a BGP related reachability issue.
Does anybody have any reasonable statistics for networks announced that
don't fit an entry in the registry?
Andy