Re: Has PSI been assigned network 1?

[jgs () aads net (John G. Scudder)]

I assume one of the RA folks will respond to this if they see fit.  However:

At 1:50 PM 4/19/95, Vadim Antonov wrote:
> Well, there is a big _if_:  if things will work w/o RADB (and they
> will, for no sane provider will use RADB as the sole source of
> exterior information at peering points, not for at least before
> it became the proven and stable service) -- people will forget
> to update things, cut the corners, etc.

You appear to be conflating the RADB and the RSes.  The two are separable.
You can use the RADB (or, more generally, the IRR) w/o having to trust the
RSes.

I think this is a really important point, and one which a lot of people
seem to be confused about.

> NACRs were so big headache that our implementation people dance
> around when they hear that there won't be any NACRs.

No comment.

> RADB got to be easy to use to become real.  The e-mail interface
> of NACRs is close to uselessness, and too big headache to deal with.
> Waiting time on processing is simply ridiculous.
>
> There should be a host accepting telnet sessions for on-line
> updates

This has long existed for the NACR process.

> (which have to be installed *immediately*, so whoever
> added a network can test connectivity and go ahead).

Point granted.

> There should be well-defined and useful interface to service
> providers databases.
>
> It should be secure.

Is PGP secure enough for you?

> RADB should be able to implement _existing_ routing policies,
> not the subset which can be defined in RIPE-81  (it currently
                                        ^^^^^^^
RIPE-181; it's different.  Some people have complained that RIPE-181 is
also incapable of expressing their policies; perhaps someone from the RA
team can comment on how they intend to address that.

> can't, there are places which use a lot of _very_ hairy stuff).
>
> Without that i do not see RADB being successful or useful beyond the
> point of filtering updates from particularly obnoxious peers.

Which is already a big win, seeing as how there are a good number of
particularly obnoxious peers out there, some of them quite large.

> --vadim

I have to ask if you have actually looked at the RADB and surrounding
pieces at all.  I think it addresses a number of the gripes you have
raised.

--John