[address-policy-wg] IXP peering lan reachability

Hi Carlos,


On 24/10/2017 13:12, Carlos Friaças wrote:

> 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).
>

Yes, we are monitoring the address space from the /16 reserved for IXPs 
peering LANs. When we see that one of the ranges is being announced, we 
contact the holder, reminding them the address space can only be used to 
run an IXP peering LAN, and that other uses are forbidden by policy. 
Usually the holder of the address space has indeed started using the IP 
range for other services, as they are often not aware of the policy in 
place.

I hope this clarifies,

Andrea Cima
RIPE NCC