|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: PRDB retirement (and note about AS690 advisories)
Alan, > I am not sure that nanog is the right place for this, since it affects > folk outside North America. True, but I couldn't think of a better list. > On Tue, 2 May 1995, Steve Heimlich wrote: > > New registered prefixes will assume the current majority policy toward > > the home AS in which they're registered. > > What if the current majority policy for that AS is that most nets did not > have NSFNet routing, and are announced to ANS via the CIX? It might make > more sense to exclude non-NSFNet routes when determining the majority > policy. This will take some time to clean up. See below... > Many folk have routes that did not have NSFNet routing and that were > announced to ANS via the CIX (with aslist 1:1957). What should be done > with those? Should we send in new NACRs to change the aslist? Well, the best thing I can think of is 1) we get rid of metric:as lists and 2) we modify our aut-num object on a per-AS basis to clean out exceptions like these routed only via the CIX, so that we route to them via major interchange points (MAE-East, Sprint NAP, MAE-West, Pac Bell NAP, ...). We probably don't want to do this until we axe the metric:as lists (so that we just do it once, on an AS-basis). > Some non-NSFnet aggregates contain more-specific routes that do (or > rather, did) have NSFNet routing. How soon can we withdraw the > more-specifics? I fear that bad things will happen if we withdraw the > more-specifics without first changing the aslist on the aggregate. In theory, immediately, though I agree that we should clean up/remove the advisories first as the more conservative approach while getting routing right for the aggregates. I'd hate to change all of those since I know they're going away Real Soon. > How will ANS's new routing policy affect the peering between ANS and the > CIX? Is it still prohibited for ANS to hear the same route both through > the CIX and through a non-CIX connection? Should CIX members send in > new NACRs that include as1957 in aslists where it was not previously > included, or will ANS figure out something suitable without needing a > lot of new NACRs? We'll figure out something suitable and try to avoid metric:aslist shifts -- not overnight, but as part of this whole process of rationalizing policy. As I mentioned above, the most conservative approach will be to knock off ASes for which we have partial routing through the CIX one at a time. Steve
|