 SIGs |
| Programme |
| AMM |
| EC election |
| HM consultation |
| Sponsorship |
| Archive |
| Meeting Home |
13th APNIC Open Policy MeetingSIG: RoutingTuesday 5 March 2002, Queen Sirikit National Convention Center, BangkokMinutes Meeting commenced: 14:00 Chair: Philip Smith The Chair introduced the meeting and explained the agenda. Contents
Presentations
Tomoya Yoshida, NTT This presentation outlined an IRR mirroring model for RIRs, NIRs, and LIRs. It was suggested that a hierarchical model be implemented and suggested that all NIRs should create their own IRRs. Questions and discussion There was a question about how to validate routes. It was suggested that the model shown in the presentation was not an answer to ensuring integrity of announcements in the routing system, and that intermediate ISPs could still put invalid information in an IRR. There was a suggestion that NIRs should operate IRRs. However, no firm opinions were expressed about this matter. There was discussion about appropriate authorisation mechanisms. It was suggested that there could be problems with scaling authorisation mechanisms across IRRs. Olaf Kolkman, RIPE NCC This presentation outlined the motivation behind the development of the Routing Information Service (RIS). The RIS provides raw data from BGP updates is available to the public for analysis. Questions and discussion The presenter encouraged networks from the Asia Pacific region to become involved and welcome contact from any organisation interested in becoming a route collector. Joao Damas, RIPE NCC This presentation outlined required extensions to RPSL needs to be extended, reporting on relevant current drafts. One proposal suggested including address families while another suggests creating a second type of route object for IPv6 called route6. Questions and discussion There was a question about how the proposals outlined in the drafts would deal with IPv6 tunnelled through IPv4. It was explained that this would be a peering matter outside the scope of RPSL extensions. It was suggested that the proposals to extend RPSL to support IPv6 could result in a related IETF working group reforming. It was noted that work on the proposals was ongoing. One draft proposal had been published to date. Geoff Huston, Telstra This presentation was an update of a similar presentation given at the Taipei meeting. In Taipei, it appeared that BGP rates were growing exponentially. However, it has now been shown that this high growth has not continued. Growth has continued, but there is less 'noise'. Smaller prefixes are responsible for most of the noise. However, other factors will mean that non-aggregatable atomic entries will continue to have an impact. Questions and discussion It was suggested that if ASNs had grown by 25% and addresses has grown by 8%, then perhaps it was the older ASNs which are the cause of the problems. It was noted that it appears that networks are now preferring shorter prefixes to avoid being filtered out of the routing table. There was a question about when ASNs would be exhausted. It was suggested that depending on future usage, exhaustion of the current ASN ranges could occur around 2007. However, it was noted that while 25,000 ASNs had been allocated, only half of those were visible in the routing table. Geoff Huston, Telstra This presentation discussed the difficulties faced by networks when trying to determine if a route is incorrect. To date, most networks simply trust their customer's assertions. This presentation suggested that RIRs should create BGP route servers to identify what space is truly unallocated and should not be routed. Questions and discussion It was noted that this was an interesting proposal worth further discussion. There was a question whether the purpose for proposing this is for RIRs to show allocated and assigned space as well as space that should not be announced. It was explained that the proposal was currently only interested in determining when people were lying about routes. It was explained that this proposed solution did not address the problem of people who were announcing address space that was legitimately allocated or assigned, but was not actually controlled by them. Meeting closed: 15.35 Minuted by: Sam Dickinson |