> Please don't conflate the policy mechanisms enabled by the IRR policy > *language*/specification itself with the *data* contained in the IRR
i don't. the former is called rpsl. >> 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? http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-grow-collection-communities-08 > 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. but not orthogonal to the op's direct question. randy
