[routing-wg]IRR usage arguments

On Jan 12, Volodymyr Yakovenko <vovik at dumpty.org> wrote:

>  I have difficulty in convincing my US colleagues that there are still some
>  autonomous systems in the world which pay any attention to the IRR and 
>  sometimes use it for filtering.
Many do, but the most common use for a routing registry is to generate
as-path and prefix lists from as-set and route/route6 objects.
These are the only objects most sites will care about.
OTOH few sites in the US do this, probably because they lack an useful
routing registry like the RIPE one.

>  I also having some difficulty in convincing my collegaues to update the 
>  aut-num export statement. They do believe that the folloing statent  
> 
> export: to AS-ANY announce ANY
> 
>  is just enough for all circumstances.
Indeed, documenting your routing policy in your aut-num object is
usually not useful to other sites. The only real life use I know for
the import/export attributes is generating your whole configuration
with irrtoolset. Only an handful of sites does this, and even then
rtconfig looks at their own aut-num object, not at their peers' ones.

-- 
ciao,
Marco
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/routing-wg/attachments/20060113/9fb362e5/attachment.sig>