thanks.
I was pondering the lack of interest expressed by the conference in adopting IRR entries. Back in the day when we deployed the anycast network for the geonet reporting system, we ran into our the geonet prefix not being picked up by US peers. We loaded that prefix into IRR and up things came as the US folks auto build their import filters at the peering points based on what's in the IRR registries.
Got me wondering whether NZ Purchasers of Internet transit to the US are getting the full benefits of their service (i.e. their foreign peers picking up all prefixes) as we'd be relying on the transit providers to create the IRR proxy objects.
Populating IRR for kiwi providers is an extra step, but I do wonder if it'd result in shorter paths stateside (assuming the international transit guys aren't as sharp on proxy objects as we'd like)
I'm not an Ops guy now - there's far smarter guys than me in the team to do that now. But my take is populating the IRR is it is best practice to do so, and every step we take to improve latency is a good thing right?
Isn't the other thing is that populating the IRR is the 1st step towards what seems to be a plan to prevent prefix hijacking with RPKI? Where's that whole initiative at these days?
cheers,
Jamie
On 1/02/2012, at 10:33 PM, Andy Linton
On 31/01/12 22:47 , jamie baddeley wrote:
Hey Andy,
Thanks for that update on the NZIX exchanges at the conference. There was some good things in there that I felt didn't get all the discussion it necessarily deserved. Do you fancy posting that preso, or perhaps a link to it somewhere in order to provoke further discussion?
I'll post on this tomorrow - I've been in a long meeting today!
_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog