Mailing List Archive

>
> OK. So WHY AREN"T people using the routing registry? If they did would
> they be able to get around individual peering and transit agreements? Is
> it a chicken and egg thing. IE what percentage of global routes does the
> registry have? how does the registry as it stands now save people time,
> trouble or money?
>

for answers to some of these questions, I would point you
at the following URL:
http://www.merit.edu/routing.arbiter/RA/index.html

The IRR has little to do with peering & transit, other
than to reflect agreements.

Other questions will have to be answered by people in
the community. Many people do register in the IRR.
Those that don't, won't for a variety of reasons. For some,
there is an unwillingness to trust a thirdparty operator
coupled with no desire to run a portion of the registry in-house.
When these two conditions are found in a large-scale provider,
the concept and implementation of the Internet RR are
frustrated to the extent that the non-participating provider
becomes increasingly unreachable/understandable. They
are relegated to peridoc public postings to mailing lists
for definitions of their routing policies.

I expect that the example set by other large-scale providers
would be an incentive. Running a section of the IRR inhouse
shows a spirit of cooperation and a desire to share in the
global internet. Refusal to do so appears, at least to me,
to be an arrogant, egotistical view about any specific providers
importance to a working global internet.

--bill

Good point Jeff. Sprint did get SOME inter regional connectivity money.
For that they supposedly had to connect to ALL the NAPs (besides their
own). they were supposed to make the connections a year ago. They were
what 6 to 9 months late in connecting to Pac bell nap?

So if they were supposed to use the services of the routing arbiter and
appear to have renigged on this, what can anyone do?? Are they determined
to make it painfully obvious for all to see that there are no enforcement
teeth left at the NSF?

Of course sprint is running a nap too. i understand that their position
is that the NAP is full. They have a BUNCH of people trying to get into
the NAP who are complaining to me that they get no answqers from sprint
as to when that will be possible.

********************************************************************
Gordon Cook, Editor & Publisher Subscriptions: Individ-ascii $85
The COOK Report on Internet Individ. hard copy $150
431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 Small Corp & Gov't $200
(609) 882-2572 Corporate $350
Internet: cook@cookreport.com Corporate Site Lic. $650
Web: http://pobox.com/cook/ Newly expanded COOK Report Web Pages
********************************************************************


On Wed, 13 Dec 1995 Jeff.Ogden@um.cc.umich.edu wrote:

> The large scale provider MichNet uses is MCI and they are required
> to cooperate with the RA and others. This is in their contract. I suspect
> that something similar might be in some of the other contracts of providers
> that provide service to networks that received funding from NSF for
> Interregional Connectivity. People might want to go read the fine
> print in their contracts.
> -Jeff Ogden
> Merit/MichNet
>

On Wed, 13 Dec 1995 Jeff.Ogden@um.cc.umich.edu wrote:

> with Sprint. I think it is unlikely that Sprint got any Interregional
> Connectivity money, however. That money went to regional networks. Those
> networks may be spending some of the NSF funds with Sprint. The agreements

I believe Nysernet got some IRC money, and they are with Sprint.

-dorian
______________________________________________________________________________
Dorian Kim Email: dorian@cic.net 2901 Hubbard Drive
Network Engineer Phone: (313)998-6976 Ann Arbor MI 48105
CICNet Network Systems Fax: (313)998-6105 http://www.cic.net/~dorian



>regional networks and not directly on the NSPs. It is up to the
>regional networks to pass those requirements on to their NSP and I'd
>think it was up to the regional networks and not NSF to see that the NSPs
>follow the requirements.
>
>Sprint is a funny beast in this discussion because they are both
>an NSP and a NAP operator (and still the International Connections
>Manager?), but I think the recent discussion has been talking about
>NSPs and not NAP operators.
>
> -Jeff Ogden
> Merit
>
>

The large scale provider MichNet uses is MCI and they are required
to cooperate with the RA and others. This is in their contract. I suspect
that something similar might be in some of the other contracts of providers
that provide service to networks that received funding from NSF for
Interregional Connectivity. People might want to go read the fine
print in their contracts.
-Jeff Ogden
Merit/MichNet

MichNet's agreement is with MCI. I can't speak about deals others may have
with Sprint. I think it is unlikely that Sprint got any Interregional
Connectivity money, however. That money went to regional networks. Those
networks may be spending some of the NSF funds with Sprint. The agreements
that came from NSF along with the money imposed requirements on the
regional networks and not directly on the NSPs. It is up to the
regional networks to pass those requirements on to their NSP and I'd
think it was up to the regional networks and not NSF to see that the NSPs
follow the requirements.

Sprint is a funny beast in this discussion because they are both
an NSP and a NAP operator (and still the International Connections
Manager?), but I think the recent discussion has been talking about
NSPs and not NAP operators.

-Jeff Ogden
Merit

> So if they were supposed to use the services of the routing arbiter and
> appear to have renigged on this, what can anyone do?? Are they determined
> to make it painfully obvious for all to see that there are no enforcement
> teeth left at the NSF?

The RA is broken, just relabeling work of Ripe and mess it upp is
not very usefull for the Global Internet. Ripe-81 (that most of this
is based on) was supposed to be a start of a toolkit for ISP's, not a
tol for someone who think they are the network Police.

-Peter

At 10:30 PM 12/13/95, cook@cookreport.com wrote:

...

>So if they were supposed to use the services of the routing arbiter and
>appear to have renigged on this, what can anyone do?? Are they determined
>to make it painfully obvious for all to see that there are no enforcement
>teeth left at the NSF?


I think you are assuming too much at this point. [About contractually
having to play with the RA.] You should address that question to Sprint,
rather than the mailing list. I believe SprintLink has voiced their willingness
to work with any tool that will help the Internet scale better, so long as it
does not have adverse effects on their network.

The last time I checked, the _biggest_ argument against using the RA was that
alot of the data is incorrect. I have also heard a lot about work that has
been done to clean up the RA. Is this still the biggest factor?

-Jeff

[mssg. from the nanog archive...]
==================================================================================

| Knowing Sean for who he is, I'm fairly sure that no RADB or RS will ever be
| suitable to him. In particular...

On the contrary; I believe Peter Lothberg's proposals
for an RS scheme are quite reasonable.

I think his criticisms of the current RADB and RS models
are pretty well known, and valid.

I would point out one more thing though, and that's that
at the Stockholm IETF I had a genial chat with a number
of folks from MERIT and the RA Team in general,
and suggested several ways that the RADB could
be made incrementally useful. I hope that some good
comes out of that conversation.

I'll use any tool that will make my job easier, and
help our operation and the Internet scale better.
At the moment, though, the RADB does the opposite,
and the RS has no value whatsoever.

Sean.
===================================================================================


>Of course sprint is running a nap too. i understand that their position
>is that the NAP is full. They have a BUNCH of people trying to get into
>the NAP who are complaining to me that they get no answqers from sprint
>as to when that will be possible.
>
>********************************************************************
>Gordon Cook, Editor & Publisher Subscriptions: Individ-ascii $85
>The COOK Report on Internet Individ. hard copy $150
>431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 Small Corp & Gov't $200
>(609) 882-2572 Corporate $350
>Internet: cook@cookreport.com Corporate Site Lic. $650
>Web: http://pobox.com/cook/ Newly expanded COOK Report Web Pages
>********************************************************************
>
>
>On Wed, 13 Dec 1995 Jeff.Ogden@um.cc.umich.edu wrote:
>
>> The large scale provider MichNet uses is MCI and they are required
>> to cooperate with the RA and others. This is in their contract. I suspect
>> that something similar might be in some of the other contracts of providers
>> that provide service to networks that received funding from NSF for
>> Interregional Connectivity. People might want to go read the fine
>> print in their contracts.
>> -Jeff Ogden
>> Merit/MichNet
>>
>
>
>

Gordon Cook writes:

Good point Jeff. Sprint did get SOME inter regional connectivity money.
For that they supposedly had to connect to ALL the NAPs (besides their
own). they were supposed to make the connections a year ago. They were
what 6 to 9 months late in connecting to Pac bell nap?

So if they were supposed to use the services of the routing arbiter and
appear to have renigged on this, what can anyone do?? Are they determined
to make it painfully obvious for all to see that there are no enforcement
teeth left at the NSF?

The NSF funded regionals, not NSPs. There is no requirement in
NSF93-52 that makes use of the RA mandatory. The only requirement
placed on the regional's choice of NSP is connection to all priority
NAPS.

As the NAPS were significantly late in becoming operational, and are
less significant to the operation of the continental infrastructure
than originally planned, one can hardly take any particular NSP to
task for being late to connect to all of them.

--
Jeff Hayward

Peter,

>Peter Lothberg writes:
>
> [stuff deleted]
>
> The RA is broken, just relabeling work of Ripe and mess it upp is
> not very usefull for the Global Internet. Ripe-81 (that most of this
> is based on) was supposed to be a start of a toolkit for ISP's, not a
> tol for someone who think they are the network Police.
>
> -Peter
>

We've had this discussion many times, and will probably never agree.

The RA adopted the RIPE database work since it seemed reasonable to
express global information in a standard fashion. Credit is given to
RIPE and the PRIDE project whenever there is talk of the IRR, RIPE
NCC Database, the RADB, etc.

The RA team has announced many tools based on the database and the routes
known to the route servers:

1) IRRWeb - graphical interface to query the IRR and to update the RADB

2) Route History Server - provides a mechanism for tracking the announce/
withdraw history of a given prefix for the last 24 hours

3) Route Flap Statistics Generator - provides mechanism for calculating the
level of routing instability at all of the four NAPs

4) Route Server Routing Table Statistics Generator - reports on the size an
content of the Internet routing tables as seen by the Route Servers at
each Network Access Point

5) Peval - policy evaluator that inputs RIPE-181 policy expression, performs
certain calculations, and outputs expressions that can be used by other
tools, like RTConfig

6) RTConfig - front-end tool that uses Peval and RADBserver to generate router
configurations

7) RADBserver - extension of the RIPE whoisd server which provides a protocol
for getting information from RIPE-style database files

8) RSd - an enhanced version of GateD routing software that provides multiple
views of routing information

9) rrc2r/rrmerge - a package to convert Cisco router configuration files to
RIPE-181 objects that can be submitted to a RIPE-style database

10) CiscoBGP - analyzes routing information from production Ciscos and compares
the data with routes in the IRR

11) BGPCheck - compares information from BGP4 peering sessions with the route serves
with data in the IRR

12) PRtraceroute - developed by the PRIDE project, the RA team provides a version
that queries the RADB

In addition if you look at the RA web pages, you will find descriptions of other
tools which are under development. The RA is committed to working with the
community to develop tools that are seen as beneficial.

--Elise (does NOT rhyme with police)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

>>>>> "Gordon" == Gordon Cook <gcook@tigger.jvnc.net> writes:
Gordon> [Sprint was]
Gordon> what 6 to 9 months late in connecting to Pac
Gordon> bell nap?

Gordon> So if they were supposed to use the services
Gordon> of the routing arbiter and appear to have
Gordon> renigged on this, what can anyone do??

Gee, if we see Gordon obviously trying to cobble together
every Great Evil (tm) that Sprint has done to the Internet
for what looks like it's going to be one helluva Cook
Report, what can anyone do??

Sean.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: PGP Public Key in ftp://ftp.sprintlink.net/engineer/smd/pgpkey

iQCVAwUBMNOreUSWYarrFs6xAQFSTwP8DuAKQBaGoIQPpU6/0GTmFRwQMBtDiDL6
QJmLV9+wSE37MFfeggaljNgFV+lxoIlzEtrXJ5trB4WinLhSY29OX3+4RLV7fy4W
ohGeU6FS0PXhaKpjEwoMliUelvxiekPKmI1ZmiBIadoKjpFRiAUZEmeym83EV+VJ
8ZQj7ppBTts=
=VfE1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

>>>>> "bmanning" == bmanning <bmanning@ISI.EDU>

Bill writes (I hope of me):

bmanning> appears, at least to me, to be an arrogant,
bmanning> egotistical view about any specific
bmanning> providers importance to a working global
bmanning> internet.

Hm. Pot. Kettle. Black.

Sean.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: PGP Public Key in ftp://ftp.sprintlink.net/engineer/smd/pgpkey

iQCVAwUBMNOscESWYarrFs6xAQHbtwQAoQm0too0d/fccl4oQRDp+/tBsBsiVmg4
22/LKshSiKQbM1MFrVP58WJJ5jWQiZDdjXavtnIwblaQh1T8Jg8WfomxIwqwmUZP
IUHjh2lpt/eGbZo7EZQZB9XfB8CW+2G+iA1D3Upq/W20PrauO2xg1IIrHiI26l/0
X1OsqTsbT2Y=
=7AKI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

>
> Bill writes (I hope of me):
>
> bmanning> appears, at least to me, to be an arrogant,
> bmanning> egotistical view about any specific
> bmanning> providers importance to a working global
> bmanning> internet.
>
> Hm. Pot. Kettle. Black.
>
> Sean.

Reminds me of a Dilbert...
Dogbert: "I'm creating a comic strip called 'The Adventures of
Boron'"
Dilbert: "The Most Boring Man in the entire Universe.."
He looks like me!
Dogbert: "Geez, What an Ego you have."

Sean, when I write about you, you will be named. As to your comments,
I will admit to having an opinion that everyone is entitled to. I
am -not-, at this time, a provider, so my "arrogant,egotistical view"
ought to be taken w/ a grain of salt.

--bill