ntacpeering - RADB vs. ARIN Whois (was: Re: No route6 object for 2001:468::/32)
Subject: NTAC Peering Working Group
List archive
- From: David Farmer <>
- To: Bill Owens <>
- Cc: I2 IPv6 working group <>, "" <>
- Subject: RADB vs. ARIN Whois (was: Re: No route6 object for 2001:468::/32)
- Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 17:01:56 -0600
- Ironport-phdr: 9a23:AR10XRawCjlbQ8L4xLATuW//LSx+4OfEezUN459isYplN5qZoMm4bnLW6fgltlLVR4KTs6sC17KP9fi4EUU7or+5+EgYd5JNUxJXwe43pCcHRPC/NEvgMfTxZDY7FskRHHVs/nW8LFQHUJ2mPw6arXK99yMdFQviPgRpOOv1BpTSj8Oq3Oyu5pHfeQpFiCagbb9oMBm6sRjau9ULj4dlNqs/0AbCrGFSe+RRy2NoJFaTkAj568yt4pNt8Dletuw4+cJYXqr0Y6o3TbpDDDQ7KG81/9HktQPCTQSU+HQRVHgdnwdSDAjE6BH6WYrxsjf/u+Fg1iSWIdH6QLYpUjm58axlVAHnhzsGNz4h8WHYlMpwjL5AoBm8oxBz2pPYbJ2JOPZ7eK7WYNEUSndbXstJVyJPDICyYZYRAeUdJutXtZXxqkEUoBeiGQWhBuXiwSJIiH/s2q061vwsHw/c0ww+HtIBrWnfotXvO6cIVOC60rPIxijEYvNYwzj98o3IfQ47ofyXQLJwdMzRxVMxGAzYk1WdsIroNC6W2OQVq2WX8uRtWO21h2MkpAx9uCWjy8Mth4XTmI4Z1lPJ+T1nzIopIdC0Uk12bN6+HJdOqi2XN5F6T8ImTmxupS000KcJuYShcygP0JknxwDQa/iAc4WQ5xLjSPyeLS5ghH9mYr6/gBey8VS6xu3hU8m01kxGoTRYndnRrnwN1hrT5dabSvZl40us1zmC2xrQ5+xLO0w4iK7WJp87zrIuipYeslzPHirsl0X3iK+WeF8k+u+t6+n/bLXpvIWcN4pqhQHkKakuh8m/AeIiPgcQQmeb5Pyw1Kf/8k3hXLVKkvo2n7HfsJDGP8sUura5DBFL3YY56ha/CTim3c8cnXkGN1JFZAmHg5bzN1HPJvD4Eemwg06qkDh12/DKIKftDYvQIXjew//deuNX6kpYgC0swNZEr8ZTFbwHO9r1S1T8rtrVElk+KQPikMj9D9Ao+ooAWG7HLKaDNa7I+QuG7/gqLvOkeYoT/jvxNq52tLbVkXYllApFLuGS1pwNZSX9R6w+Lg==
Bill,
Thinking about this a little more, with ARIN-Whois and its Origin AS field, you can only maintain AS to prefix mappings, equivalent to route or route6 objects in an IRR like RADB. However, if you also maintain an AS-SET, listing the ASNs you intend to advertised to external parties, you would still need to use an IRR like RADB for the AS-SET.
That said, unless you have downstream customers you are announcing to upstream providers, or peers, and have arranged for them to use an AS-SET, you probably don't need to maintain an AS-SET.
Also in case my typos confused you; I wouldn't go remove any RADB objects just yet, but maybe sometime in the future.
Thanks
--
On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 2:26 PM, David Farmer <> wrote:
Well, it is more or less equivalent now, well the last couple weeks. I wouldn't go remove and RADB objects just yet, but maybe in the future.See the other email I just forwarded.On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 2:14 PM, Bill Owens <> wrote:A question that will reveal my limited knowledge of how routing policy is determined: is it equivalent to have a route6 object (listing the appropriate AS) or to have an Origin AS in Whois? We maintain a minimal RADB presence in order to keep a few providers happy; although I believe it is correct, it is not something we make any operational use of. If I could do the same thing in Whois, I’d choose that instead…
Thanks,
Bill.
--===============================================
David Farmer
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
===============================================
===============================================
David Farmer
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
===============================================
David Farmer
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
===============================================
- RADB vs. ARIN Whois (was: Re: No route6 object for 2001:468::/32), David Farmer, 01/03/2018
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19.