After posting to this thread, I realized that no one responded to my post, so I decided to figure out why? As it would seem I was lost in my understanding of RIPE-181, now RPSL and boy do I feel "stupid". After spending some time reading over RIPE-181, RFC2622, and RFC2650, I do now have a much better understanding of IRR's, their functionality and the continually effort to maintain the most accurate records possible.
In my zeal to understand the various objects that make up the IRR database, I foolishly used my understanding of various terms to provide clarity. Terms like communities, ASXX, etc.. In realizing that these terms are not in any way associated to what I related them to be, with respects to terms of BGP attributes or values. In obtaining a much better understanding of the IRR and routing policy, I do now see the emphasis placed on determining the routing policy before trying to configure or implement the peering relationships. Well, this was another great learning experience. If this is where stupidity takes me, I look forward to my next encounter with stupidity. Nigel Still so much to learn... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nigel Taylor" To: Sent: Sunday, June 02, 2002 4:24 PM Subject: Re: Another BGP attribute question [7:45619] > See Inline... > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" > To: > Sent: Sunday, June 02, 2002 11:17 AM > Subject: Re: Another BGP attribute question [7:45619] > > > > At 7:00 AM -0400 6/2/02, Nigel Taylor wrote: > > >All, > > > I was reading the old RIPE(22nd meeting minutes) and was > wondering, > > >what > > >ever became of the BGP > > >proposal from Tony Bates and Enke Chen for the use of the Destination > > >Preference Attribute (DPA) for multi-homed sites. > > > > DPA keeps coming up, at least for end-to-end route selection. Its > > basic problem is that only ISPs with whom you have an economic > > relationship have any motivation to respect it. Geoff Huston's > > NOPEER is a simpler way to accomplish the same thing (probably > > coupled with class of service request communities). > > Howard, thanks a lot for the info/insight of DPA and specifically pointing > me to the "NOPEER" > attribute draft. I was able to briefly read over the draft and I must say > this does seem > like a solution to the present problem. However, I was also doing some > reading of the > APNIC's (http://www.apnic.net/meetings/13/sigs/docs/irr-presentation.ppt)13 > minutes > and it's noted some of the present problems with the IRRs. The one that > seems to apply > here would be the statement that, "About 50% of full routes are not > registered to public > IRRs. > > I have a question? Do you see the "NOPEER" as having a directory class in > the RPSL > and if so in doing some recent reading of RPSL, and RPSLng, the enhancements > RPSL on the > same site wouldn't the "NOPEER" attribute be limited to representing what is > known in > the IRRs. With this being the case how effective can the attribute be, when > representing > at best 50% of the global BGP FIB. > > Of course then there is the ever present security issues which seems to > being getting some > attention through the RPSS(rfc2725). > > > > > >Based on our preivous thread with the known and unknown implications of > > >"inconsistant routes", I would think > > >this could've have been a step in the right direction. > > > > > >I did find a link where Enke Chen notes the use of the "LOCLA_PREF" > > attribute > > >by many providers, since the > > >lack of the DPA and rfc1998 also notes how the use of "communities" aid > in > > >this process. > > > > You can really solve LOTS of operational issues with creative use of > > communities. While RFC2547 was one driver for creating an extended > > community attribute, there are various ideas floating around for > > other applications thereof. > > Do you care to mention some of the other ideas..floating aeround? > > > > > > > > >Anyone has any thoughts or suggestions on this as it applies to the use > of > > >DPA > > >and where things stand on > > >global/ISP-based implementation of this attribute? > > > > > > As far as I know, it's never been implemented in operations. I'm > > reasonably certain that some versions of Bay RS could generate it, > > but I don't know of anyone that listens for it. > > I remebered in reading Sam Halabi's book - Internet Routing architectures > (Pg. 118, 1st ed) > he noted cisco's lack of support for attributes 11(DPA). However, it is > noted as bieng MCI defined. > As you pointed out I've yet to come across anything that suggest anyone is > making use of the DPA > attribute. > > > > > -- > > "What Problem are you trying to solve?" > > ***send Cisco questions to the list, so all can benefit -- not > > directly to me*** > > > **************************************************************************** > **** > > Howard C. Berkowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Chief Technology Officer, GettLab/Gett Communications > http://www.gettlabs.com > > Technical Director, CertificationZone.com http://www.certificationzone.com > > "retired" Certified Cisco Systems Instructor (CID) #93005 > > thanks > Nigel Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=45775&t=45775 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
