"Nigel Taylor" wrote, >After posting to this thread, I realized that no one responded to my post, >so I decided to figure out why? As it >would seem I was lost in my understanding of RIPE-181, now RPSL and boy do I >feel "stupid". After spending >some time reading over RIPE-181, RFC2622, and RFC2650, I do now have a much >better understanding >of IRR's, their functionality and the continually effort to maintain the >most accurate records possible.
Also remember that while the public IRRs often have incomplete information due to commercial confidentiality, large ISPs often have additional information in their own IRR mirror/extended server. irrd is freeware. > >In my zeal to understand the various objects that make up the IRR database, >I foolishly used my understanding >of various terms to provide clarity. Terms like communities, ASXX, etc.. >In realizing that these terms are not in >any way associated to what I related them to be, with respects to terms of >BGP attributes or values. Don't feel bad -- I went throught exactly the same sort of doubletake. > >In obtaining a much better understanding of the IRR and routing policy, I do >now see the emphasis placed on >determining the routing policy before trying to configure or implement the >peering relationships. > >Well, this was another great learning experience. If this is where >stupidity takes me, I look forward to my next >encounter with stupidity. > >Nigel >Still so much to learn... > > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Nigel Taylor" >To: >Sent: Sunday, June 02, 2002 4:24 PM >Subject: Re: Another BGP attribute question [7:45619] > > >> See Inline... >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" >> To: >> Sent: Sunday, June 02, 2002 11:17 AM >> Subject: Re: Another BGP attribute question [7:45619] >> >> >> > At 7:00 AM -0400 6/2/02, Nigel Taylor wrote: >> > >All, >> > > I was reading the old RIPE(22nd meeting minutes) and was >> wondering, >> > >what >> > >ever became of the BGP >> > >proposal from Tony Bates and Enke Chen for the use of the Destination >> > >Preference Attribute (DPA) for multi-homed sites. >> > >> > DPA keeps coming up, at least for end-to-end route selection. Its >> > basic problem is that only ISPs with whom you have an economic >> > relationship have any motivation to respect it. Geoff Huston's >> > NOPEER is a simpler way to accomplish the same thing (probably >> > coupled with class of service request communities). >> >> Howard, thanks a lot for the info/insight of DPA and specifically pointing >> me to the "NOPEER" >> attribute draft. I was able to briefly read over the draft and I must >say >> this does seem >> like a solution to the present problem. However, I was also doing some >> reading of the >> APNIC's >(http://www.apnic.net/meetings/13/sigs/docs/irr-presentation.ppt)13 >> minutes >> and it's noted some of the present problems with the IRRs. The one that >> seems to apply >> here would be the statement that, "About 50% of full routes are not >> registered to public >> IRRs. >> >> I have a question? Do you see the "NOPEER" as having a directory class in >> the RPSL >> and if so in doing some recent reading of RPSL, and RPSLng, the >enhancements >> RPSL on the >> same site wouldn't the "NOPEER" attribute be limited to representing what >is >> known in >> the IRRs. With this being the case how effective can the attribute be, >when >> representing >> at best 50% of the global BGP FIB. >> >> Of course then there is the ever present security issues which seems to >> being getting some >> attention through the RPSS(rfc2725). >> >> > >> > >Based on our preivous thread with the known and unknown implications of >> > >"inconsistant routes", I would think >> > >this could've have been a step in the right direction. >> > > >> > >I did find a link where Enke Chen notes the use of the "LOCLA_PREF" >> > attribute >> > >by many providers, since the >> > >lack of the DPA and rfc1998 also notes how the use of "communities" aid > > in >> > >this process. >> > >> > You can really solve LOTS of operational issues with creative use of >> > communities. While RFC2547 was one driver for creating an extended >> > community attribute, there are various ideas floating around for >> > other applications thereof. >> >> Do you care to mention some of the other ideas..floating aeround? >> >> > >> > > >> > >Anyone has any thoughts or suggestions on this as it applies to the use >> of >> > >DPA >> > >and where things stand on >> > >global/ISP-based implementation of this attribute? >> > >> > >> > As far as I know, it's never been implemented in operations. I'm >> > reasonably certain that some versions of Bay RS could generate it, >> > but I don't know of anyone that listens for it. >> >> I remebered in reading Sam Halabi's book - Internet Routing architectures >> (Pg. 118, 1st ed) >> he noted cisco's lack of support for attributes 11(DPA). However, it is >> noted as bieng MCI defined. >> As you pointed out I've yet to come across anything that suggest anyone is >> making use of the DPA >> attribute. >> >> > >> > -- >> > "What Problem are you trying to solve?" >> > ***send Cisco questions to the list, so all can benefit -- not >> > directly to me*** >> > >> >**************************************************************************** >> **** >> > Howard C. Berkowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > Chief Technology Officer, GettLab/Gett Communications >> http://www.gettlabs.com >> > Technical Director, CertificationZone.com >http://www.certificationzone.com >> > "retired" Certified Cisco Systems Instructor (CID) #93005 >> >> thanks >> Nigel Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=45787&t=45775 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
