North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: So -- what did happen to Panix?
- From: John Payne
- Date: Wed Feb 01 15:49:58 2006
On Jan 30, 2006, at 5:02 AM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
It gets even more fun if you're delegating route-origination to 3rd
On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 09:48:13AM +0000,
Take it up with the people putting data into the system, not the IRR
Wouldn't a well-operated network of IRRs used by 95% of
network operators be able to meet all three of your
We have such a database (used by Verio and others), but the Panix
happened anyway due to bit rot. We've got to find a way to fix the
problems before we can make improvements at layer 3.
If an IRR suffers from bit-rot, then I don't consider
it to be "well-operated" and therefore it cannot be
considered to be part of a well-operated network of
The point is that the tools exist. The failing is in
how those tools are managed. In other words this is
an operational problem on both the scale of a single
IRR and on the scale of the IRR system. Is this
what you mean by a "layer 8" problem?
operators. Anyone who is behind an IRR-based provider (like Verio) has
motivation to put data into the system ("hey look I do this and now
routing works"), but there is no motivation to take stale data OUT
Add a mnt-routes: so they can create a route object, but then you
can't remove that inetnum block whilst their route object exists (nor
remove the mnt-routes).