Hi Carlos,
On 24/10/2017 13:12, Carlos Friaças wrote:
On Tue, 24 Oct 2017, Nick Hilliard wrote:
Gert Doering wrote:
The *absence* of the route is a very strong indicator that no other
services than directly peering-related are sitting on that network, no?
or that the holder is squatting the space, or that it's being used for
connectivity which is unrelated to the standard DFZ (e.g. l3vpn p2p
addressing), or that it's just not being used at that time, or...
By all means, the RIPE NCC should flag things as a problem if it sees
server farms configured on an assigned ixp range, or sees traceroutes
ending up in residential customer, or whatever, but the presence or
absence of a prefix in the dfz, per se, does not mean anything.
I understand it as a simple clue. Clues sometimes lead nowhere...
Btw, is the NCC already monitoring this address space's usage somehow?
(i may have missed this bit from Andrea's presentation, i didn't catch
it from the beginning).
Yes, we are monitoring the address space from the /16 reserved for IXPs
peering LANs. When we see that one of the ranges is being announced, we
contact the holder, reminding them the address space can only be used to
run an IXP peering LAN, and that other uses are forbidden by policy.
Usually the holder of the address space has indeed started using the IP
range for other services, as they are often not aware of the policy in
place.
I hope this clarifies,
Andrea Cima
RIPE NCC
