[ppml] Proposed Policy: Capturing Originations in Templates
--On February 16, 2006 3:56:19 PM -0800 "william(at)elan.net"
<william at elan.net> wrote:
> [On a less sarcastic note...]
> On Thu, 16 Feb 2006, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> The rub here is that the RR requires things specified in RPSL and allows
>> much finer grained control of routing policy specification.
> You do not need to use those controls if you do not have to. The simple
> things like what ASN is going to announce that ipblock is very easy to
> both enter and understand.
While that is true, it doesn't change the fact that RPSL is a finicky
and esoteric syntax as a result of it's need to do those things.
> The issue is that RRs at least in North America are run separate from
> registrars and there is no way to be certain that whoever entered
> something in RR is authorized to have done it.
This simply isn't true. Some of the RRs are run separate from
registrars, but, there is an ARIN run RR run by ARIN which is the
only registrar in North America.
>> However, perhaps we should look into generating a simplified process for
>> creating RPSL to simply define valid origin ASs for a given prefix and
>> make that available to registrants.
> The process is available to registrants. Most of us don't use it unless
> we begin to do peering on such a scale where it matters.
Really... Where is the simplified RPSL generator based on a web form
or other process? As a registrant, I'd like to know.
> What RPSL needs to see wider use is marketing toward both the ISPs that
> can use it for filtering and ASN holders. Another issue is also that RRs
> get to be out of date where as whois is slightly better maintained. Both
> of those are primarily due to human factors.
All of those statements are assumptions. There are lots of ancient whois
entries. RPSL suffers from a chicken and egg problem. The RPSL data
available in the RRs is not sufficiently accurate for ISPs to reliably
risk filtering on that basis. The data is not maintained because most
people don't worry about maintaining data that doesn't have operational
>> Probably one of the significant hurdles to better use of the RRs is the
>> difficulty of correctly coding things in RPSL.
> RPSL is no more difficult then SWIP templates are. And there are mote
> tools available for it.
I disagree completely. I've never had trouble filling out a SWIP template
and it's never taken me more than one try to get one accepted. I cannot
even come close to this claim on an RPSL entry. In fact, it has usually
taken me at least three attempts.
If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: not available