Towards a Disjoint IRR

In message <9505011426.AA29351 at ncc.ripe.net>, Daniel Karrenberg writes:
> 
>   > Some users (e.g. multi-homed users) may need to be registered in more
>   > than one registry.
> 
> So what?

Why is this so.  If they register in one place and there are other
places with secondary information, there registration should reach
everywhere.  For example if they register with MCI, RADB should
provide secondary and ANS should be secondary too, perhaps even
getting inforation from the RADB.  AS long as the AS690 aut-num has
policy for their home AS (origin), they should get routed correctly.

>   > We can mitigate the Changing Users Data problem by sending out an
>   > announcement of this plan, and then asking for anyone who does *not*
>   > want their duplicated nets pruned from the RADB to send us a list of
>   > either the Origin ASs or the Route IPs that they want us to leave
>   > alone.
> 
> That's what we will probably do w.r.t. the advisory: AS690 thing.

I don't expect AS690 advisories to have a long life.  We are able to
generate configs without them using mostly AS based policy with
exceptions listed on a per network basis that are identical to those
with the AS advisories, it just takes to long right now to be
practical.  I'm working on integrating this with peval and Dale's work
to get rid of the advisories, quickly if possible.

Curtis



-------- Logged at  Mon May 1 21:00:47 MET DST 1995  ---------