Draft of RIPE81++

 * > > I dont agree on the inconsistencies. The type of people who will use
 * > > this attribute will know what their peers AS routers are. Lets face it
 * > > who runs there BGP peering without configuring the remote peer address?
 * 
 * Whereas someone will always configure their peer router, we're not
 * convinced that folks will show the same attention to updating the
 * routing registry.

Hold on, what is the point of a routing registry if you are not
convinced people will update the information? If one cannot convince
people to keep the routing registry up to date (ie if you do not give
them an incentive to keep it up to date) the routing registry is
useless. Partly correct information is worse than no information at
all. If you think this is true for the peer router, isn't this true
for any information people put in? The idea is that people work from
the routing registry to a configuration and not vice versa. This is
the only real incentive you can give people.

But, let's not start a discussion on this, let's concentrate on the
things that need a decision. I just think that arguing that people
will not update the information is the wrong reason to have something
mandatory or optional.

 * See you all in Lisbon.
 *           --Elise

You should probably send in a registration form....

-Marten



-------- Logged at  Wed Sep 7 01:02:48 MET DST 1994  ---------