North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: Route Registry: who uses them?
> Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 14:39:01 -0700 > From: "Todd Caine" <[email protected]> > Sender: [email protected] > > > I've been talking with our router geeks and we have been > debating over the usefulness of route registries. We were > asked recently on an application for peering if we consult > RADB, and our response was, "We have used it although it's > not up to date; Why do you use it?", and we received no > response. In my experience, I've never heard of any cases > where it has been used. OK. We use it. If you peer with ESnet you must register routes or we will not accept them. If you wonder why, ask Randy Bush. (He has made the pitch for prefix filtering at several NANOG meetings.) I might mention that the AS707 goof had no impact on us because of this filtering. Beyond this, the peering agreement with at least one major network mandates that you register routes if you want to peer with them and that you filter. That all said, we do not filter several major providers for practical reasons. These include UUnet, SprintLink and PSInet. > Who should use Route Registries? Why? Anyone who peers at public peering points. If you have customers who want to reach any of our sites (and these include most of the major US Government research laboratories), you need to register or use one of the big transit providers which we don't filter. On a more pragmatic level, it provides information to troubleshooting failures. If a customer reports that he can't reach 10.1.1.1 and it's not registered, it takes a LOT longer to figure out who to call to resolve the problem. > Is it worth the time? The time is pretty minimal as long as you don't get behind. It's just a standard part of setting up a new prefix in our network. Takes only a couple of minutes. > Do people trust that the information is accurate enough to > let a route server automate establishing your peering > sessions? Is there a limit to the detail that you should > provide? Yes. We do many peerings with providers via the route servers with good results. The only problem is when a provider stops registering his nets and RA peers can't get there. Detail? All you REALLY need is an AS macro defining what ASes you provide transit for, a maintainer object to allow updates to other objects, an inet-rtr object telling the route servers who to talk to and whether to add the RS AS to the path or not, and a record for each prefix you announce. The aut-num object is a good idea, but I don't use it to generate policy, so I don't really care if it is there. I use it most for troubleshooting. Since we are non-commercial, we are probably more willing than most to disclose the details of our peerings. > I've looked at some of the information that other providers > have put in the route registry, but nothing really seemed > all that useful to us. Would anyone agree or disagree? It's useful to me and my organization. > Am I missing something here? I think so. R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) E-mail: [email protected] Phone: +1 510 486-8634