North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: Has PSI been assigned network 1?
I assume one of the RA folks will respond to this if they see fit. However: At 1:50 PM 4/19/95, Vadim Antonov wrote: >Well, there is a big _if_: if things will work w/o RADB (and they >will, for no sane provider will use RADB as the sole source of >exterior information at peering points, not for at least before >it became the proven and stable service) -- people will forget >to update things, cut the corners, etc. You appear to be conflating the RADB and the RSes. The two are separable. You can use the RADB (or, more generally, the IRR) w/o having to trust the RSes. I think this is a really important point, and one which a lot of people seem to be confused about. >NACRs were so big headache that our implementation people dance >around when they hear that there won't be any NACRs. No comment. >RADB got to be easy to use to become real. The e-mail interface >of NACRs is close to uselessness, and too big headache to deal with. >Waiting time on processing is simply ridiculous. > >There should be a host accepting telnet sessions for on-line >updates This has long existed for the NACR process. >(which have to be installed *immediately*, so whoever >added a network can test connectivity and go ahead). Point granted. >There should be well-defined and useful interface to service >providers databases. > >It should be secure. Is PGP secure enough for you? >RADB should be able to implement _existing_ routing policies, >not the subset which can be defined in RIPE-81 (it currently ^^^^^^^ RIPE-181; it's different. Some people have complained that RIPE-181 is also incapable of expressing their policies; perhaps someone from the RA team can comment on how they intend to address that. >can't, there are places which use a lot of _very_ hairy stuff). > >Without that i do not see RADB being successful or useful beyond the >point of filtering updates from particularly obnoxious peers. Which is already a big win, seeing as how there are a good number of particularly obnoxious peers out there, some of them quite large. >--vadim I have to ask if you have actually looked at the RADB and surrounding pieces at all. I think it addresses a number of the gripes you have raised. --John