On Jan 19, 2012, at 5:52 AM, Randy Bush wrote: >> In some cases I saw the export policy ANNOUNCE ANY, is this consistent >> with a particular AS behaving like the RIPE AS was its customer? > > well, if i was to take that literally, that would include internal > prefixes, e.g. some of p2p inter-router links, loopbacks, ... > > of course, taking anything from the IRR literally is naïve at best.
Please don't conflate the policy mechanisms enabled by the IRR policy *language*/specification itself with the *data* contained in the IRR ... > some years back, i asked for a *simple minimal* tagging of announcements > to route views, just peer, customer, internal. it got ietfed to utter > uselessness, with more crap welded on to it than envisioned in mad max. Wrt your last paragraph: care to share a link the I-D (or, RFC) that you allude to above? I think your last paragraph is alluding to tagging routes with standard BGP communities, based on your "simple minimal" criteria, before they are sent to route-views. That strikes me as potentially orthogonal to issues with the present data in the IRR. -shane
