5:49 p.m.
Dave,
I’ll update the document to be clearer. I’m suggesting that
AS11537:AS-NREN-PEERS contains the ASNs of Internet2’s NREN peers, not
their customer cones. For example, AS11537:AS-NREN-PEERS would contain
AS20965 (GEANT), among others. It wouldn’t contain
AS20965:AS-CUSTOMERS or AS20965:AS-NREN-PEERS.
Steve
On 1 Apr 2024, at 11:40, David Farmer wrote:
Steve,
In rereading it, in your example for Internet2, do you
anticipate AS11537:AS-NREN-PEERS to be made up of the customer cones
of the
NRENs Internet2 will provide transit too?
For example, AS11537:AS-NREN-PEERS
= AS7575:AS-CUSTOMER, AS6509:AS-CANARIE, AS-CERNEXT, ...
I ask because there are limits to the depth of how many references to
references to references can be made for most RPSL tooling.
So you should probably cover that issue in the discussion.
Thanks
On Mon, Apr 1, 2024 at 9:23 AM David Farmer <farmer(a)umn.edu> wrote:
Steven Wallace
Director - Routing Integrity
Internet2
ssw(a)internet2.edu
The document should recommend consistency in what
NRENs announce to
each
other and peer NRENs and other policy goals we have in common. I have
seen
it several times where an NREN doesn't announce a prefix to one peer
but
does to another peer, causing traffic to go the wrong way around the
globe.
Actually, documenting the prefixes and the relationships will go a
long way
to resolving many of these issues. Nevertheless, we should recognize
and
document our common policy goals in addition to the mechanisms used
to
achieve the goals.
Thanks
On Mon, Apr 1, 2024 at 9:10 AM Steven Wallace <ssw(a)internet2.edu>
wrote:
--
===============================================
David Farmer Email:farmer@umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952
=============================================== Mark,
That’s a great suggestion. I believe Internet2 used to publish a
set of
community tags that attempted to provide this capability. I’m
looking
through old records to see if there is anything worth reusing or
learning
from.
Steve
On 1 Apr 2024, at 9:58, Mark Prior wrote:
--
===============================================
David Farmer Email:farmer@umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================
On 1/4/2024 20:40, Steven Wallace wrote:
> Based on the feedback from this list, I’ve put together a rough
> draft
of a best practice. Anyone can add comments to the Google Doc. If
you’d
like to edit the document directly, please send me your email, and
I’ll add
you to the document’s authors.
>
I would suggest that you develop a mutual set of communities to
indicate if a
prefix is a customer or a transit receiving peer, and
which
continent the prefix lives on so that some sensible pruning could be
attempted. As an example it would probably be helpful for Géant to
know if
Internet2 is sending prefixes from South America or Africa as they
possibly
have a better path to those locations and would want to depreference
an
Internet2 version even if the AS path was shorter. If there are
regions
with limited connectivity options than enumerating them might be
helpful.
Mark.
Steven Wallace
Director - Routing Integrity
Internet2
ssw(a)internet2.edu
_______________________________________________
Routing-wg mailing list -- routing-wg(a)lists.gna-g.net
To unsubscribe send an email to routing-wg-leave(a)lists.gna-g.net