[address-policy-wg] New Draft Document: De-boganising New Address Blocks

At 23:02 24-2-2004, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
>On 24.02 19:41, Jon Lawrence wrote:
> > > What Daniel is suggesting is a more pro-active approach on behalf of the
> > > RIR's. The advantage is that it may reach those who normally would not
> > > even be aware that they have an issue.
> >
> > Whilst a proactive approach is a good idea, is it really the RIR's 
> position to
> > do this ? As has been said previously, it's not the RIR's 
> responsibility to
> > ensure routability of IP addtresses this must lie with the various ISP's.
>
>I note that explicitly in my draft. If there are many ISPs opposed to the RIRs
>doing this we will gladly not do it and point those experiencing connectivity
>problems because of false positive matches on out-dated bogon filters to 
>the fact
>that our community does not want us to do anything about it pro-actively. ;-(

I think a proactive approach from the RIR's is the only way to put enough 
pressure behind this to make sure the bogon filters get updated in a timely 
fashion. Being one of those LIR's who was assigned an early allocation out 
of 83/8, I can say from experience that outdated bogon filters were (are) 
both very widespread, and definately noy just restricted to the category of 
"small(er) ISP's who might have missed the announcements on the RIR/network 
mailing lists". Outdated bogon filters were (are) to be found anywhere from 
individuals with a "copy & paste" ipchains/ipfw script up to the very 
largest of the big-media companies and transit providers.

Arjen Wolfs