nanog mailing list archives
Re: RIS raw data
From: Danny McPherson <danny () tcb net>
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 08:51:42 -0500
On Jan 19, 2012, at 7:52 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
of course, taking anything from the IRR literally is naïve at best.
Unfortunately, if the BGPSEC, RPKI and SIDR work stays course in the IETF, we're still going to need IRR-esque policy capabilities (outside of route server and prefix origin bindings in that work), so we best starting figuring out how to make them suck less.
some years back, i asked for a *simple minimal* tagging of announcements to route views, just peer, customer, internal. it got ietfed to utter uselessness, with more crap welded on to it than envisioned in mad max.
I agree, it's important to analyze systemic cost/benefit and complexity analysis and new operational impacts various standards work is introducing. -danny
Current thread:
- RIS raw data andra . lutu (Jan 19)
- Re: RIS raw data Nick Hilliard (Jan 19)
- Re: RIS raw data Randy Bush (Jan 19)
- Re: RIS raw data Danny McPherson (Jan 19)
- Re: RIS raw data andra . lutu (Jan 19)
- Re: RIS raw data Shane Amante (Jan 19)
- Re: RIS raw data Randy Bush (Jan 19)
- Re: RIS raw data Valdis . Kletnieks (Jan 19)
- Re: RIS raw data Peter Kristolaitis (Jan 19)
- RE: RIS raw data Leigh Porter (Jan 19)
- Re: RIS raw data Robert Bonomi (Jan 19)