hello to all
i was wondering if there were some published docs online regarding the
registration of route objects and membership at an ix - specifically,
do ixp's around the world require that their members register all of
their route objects prior to being allowed to exchange traffic at the
ix? if so, how do you/they monitor this? is it left up to the other
providers at the ix to verify that they are peering with someone who
registers their objects? is this something that an ix could/should
worry about?
i know that many providers around the world are increasingly requiring
registration, and that many build their filters from these registrations,
but i have been unable to find anything wrt internet exchanges.
replies on or off, i will summarize
thanks
/joshua
"Walk with me through the Universe,
And along the way see how all of us are Connected.
Feast the eyes of your Soul,
On the Love that abounds.
In all places at once, seemingly endless,
Like your own existence."
- Stephen Hawking -
i was wondering if there were some published docs online regarding the
> registration of route objects and membership at an ix - specifically,
> do ixp's around the world require that their members register all of
> their route objects prior to being allowed to exchange traffic at the
> ix?
No, this is not a common practice, although a few of the 350 exchanges out
there may do so.
> is it left up to the other providers at the ix to verify that they
> are peering with someone who registers their objects?
Yes, some ISPs verify that their peers' announcements and IRR registered
prefixes match. The vast majority do not.
> is this something that an ix could/should worry about?
Absolutely not, as that intrudes upon the terms of the commercial
relationship between the individual members of the exchange.
Besides which, the IX has no way of observing or enforcing any such policy
without violating the privacy of the members. There is, of course, no
reason to believe that members will advertize the same prefixes to a
looking-glass, even a private and mandatory one, that they advertize
amongst themselves. This is a rat's nest that there's no motive for
jumping into.
> i know that many providers around the world are increasingly requiring
> registration
Actually, this trend has been in the opposite direction, decreasing
interest in IRRs, for the past six or eight years, to my observation.
Perhaps others believe otherwise.
-Bill
DE-CIX (http://www.de-cix.net) does (see 4.4
http://www.de-cix.net/info/DE-CIX_technical_requirements.pdf). And afaik
that's also true for LINX, AMS-IX, Xchangepoint, ... Look at their policies
as well.
DE-CIX does not monitor this. However if you are using DE-CIX's routeserver
your announcements are filtered against your policy (as path lists and ip
filter lists).
Regards, Arnold
As far as I've seen Xchangepoint doesn't reference IRR data for MLP use.
Regards,
Jess.
The HKIX in Hong Kong maintains a an access-list per member on its route server configuration, and mails out copies on a members list periodically so that people can check that their filter is up-to-date.
The APE in Auckland and the WIX in Wellington, New Zealand both include route servers which are well-used. Both route servers incorporate route filters for peers which are built from a citylink-operated IRR-like database which speaks RPSL.
So while none of these examples illustrate exchange operators requiring any kind of registration of routes (there are no restrictions on direct peering sessions across the exchanges, for example) the popularity of the route servers on these exchanges provides some incentive for peers to publish their export policies.
These might be unusual examples, of course. I have done no great survey.
Joe
i was wondering if there were some published docs online regarding the
registration of route objects and membership at an ix - specifically,
do ixp's around the world require that their members register all of
their route objects prior to being allowed to exchange traffic at the
ix?
* arnold@nipper.de (Nipper, Arnold) [Tue 14 Oct 2003, 18:51 CEST]:
DE-CIX (http://www.de-cix.net) does (see 4.4
http://www.de-cix.net/info/DE-CIX_technical_requirements.pdf). And
afaik that's also true for LINX, AMS-IX, Xchangepoint, ... Look at
their policies as well.
AMS-IX does not, nor does it require its members to peer with anybody
(including the exchange-supporting network infrastructure). AMS-IX
believes that the decision to peer is up to the individual members.
-- Niels.