[address-policy-wg] IXP peering lan reachability

Hi,


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).

Or we are simply relying on stat.ripe.net, atlas, and the like...?


Cheers,
Carlos


> Nick
>