North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Has PSI been assigned network 1?

  • From: Curtis Villamizar
  • Date: Thu Apr 20 00:09:27 1995 
In message <[email protected]>, Vadim Antonov writes:
> >Is PGP secure enough for you?
> 
> Secure _telnet_.

Oh come on now.  Both support an strongly encrypted form of
authentication.

> >RIPE-181; it's different.
> 
> Not that much.  I used RIPE-81 as a generic name.  In general case
> routing policies which can be implemented by border routers _cannot_ be
> implemented in a central box interfacing those border boxes -- simply
> because those boxes may have (and do have) exterior peering sessions on
> other links/LANs.  A large part of routing policies (particularly between
> US and Europe) is implemented as intricate interior weighting systems
> between announcements from different sides.

Yes..  The protocols support LOCAL_PREF and MED.  RIPE-181 has cost,
perf applied on a per peering seesion basis and support for MED.

> Whoever wants to play with it can have our ICM-DC-1 configuration,
> just to try to represent what it does in RIPE-181 format.

You really need to look at your AS as a whole, not just one config
file.  It isn't a one to one translation to Cisco configs.  But sure.
Send it anyway (but not to the list).

> In any case, my point is that RADB has to be provider-friendly to
> be successful.

They are trying to be provider friendly.

> --vadim

Curtis