Should ris IGNORE default routes?
IMHO ris databases (or at least riswhois server) should simply ignore default route (0.0.0.0/0). Are there any good reasons to keep riswhois reporting default routes? <quote> % This is RIPE NCC's Routing Information Service % whois gateway to collected BGP Routing Tables % IPv4 or IPv6 address to origin prefix match % % For more information visit http://www.ripe.net/ris/riswhois.html route: 0.0.0.0/0 origin: AS9009 descr: REALROUTE-AS RealROUTE International Network lastupd-frst: 2005-08-13 23:34Z 195.69.144.63@rrc03 lastupd-last: 2005-08-13 23:34Z 195.69.144.63@rrc03 seen-at: rrc03 num-rispeers: 1 source: RISWHOIS </quote> -- Andrzej [en:Andrew] Adam Filip anfi@priv.onet.pl anfi@xl.wp.pl All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing -- Edmund Burke (1729-1797)
Are there any good reasons to keep riswhois reporting default routes?
so folk who generate and export such routes can debug. remember, one of the goals is operational, and debugging is a part of that. randy
Randy Bush wrote:
Are there any good reasons to keep riswhois reporting default routes?
so folk who generate and export such routes can debug.
remember, one of the goals is operational, and debugging is a part of that.
OK. I would like to create "simple" tool for IP->AS mapping based on riswhois data. Would you suggest some "safe to ignore" margin for number of rispeers? -- Andrzej [en:Andrew] Adam Filip anfi@priv.onet.pl anfi@xl.wp.pl All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing -- Edmund Burke (1729-1797)
I would like to create "simple" tool for IP->AS mapping based on riswhois data.
i do not believe whois data have anything about as numbers
Would you suggest some "safe to ignore" margin for number of rispeers?
so, you're looking at routing data (!=whois). the problem is that some of the ris peers o send all routes they know: internal, customer, peers, upstreams o send all internal and customer o send all customer o ... so you're in for a complex and fun game on the path you're suggesting randy
Randy Bush wrote:
I would like to create "simple" tool for IP->AS mapping based on riswhois data.
i do not believe whois data have anything about as numbers
Would you suggest some "safe to ignore" margin for number of rispeers?
so, you're looking at routing data (!=whois). the problem is that some of the ris peers o send all routes they know: internal, customer, peers, upstreams o send all internal and customer o send all customer o ...
so you're in for a complex and fun game on the path you're suggesting
The problems with WHOIS is that *some* WHOIS servers provide incomplete, obsolete or missleading IPWHOIS info e.g. by happilly accepting untrue information. RISWWHOIS provides data that can not be safely "simplified" in *EVERY* case but it is possible for (great?) majority of internet address space. By example for 66.178.40.12 riswhois routes: 0.0.0.0/0 AS9009 1 66.178.0.0/17 AS16422 57 66.178.0.0/18 AS16422 57 66.178.40.0/24 AS16422 56 The best visible route from uninterrupted series of the most specific routes with AS16422 is reported by 57 rispeers. All routes with less specific prefixes are reported by lower number of rispeers. Thank in advance for *REAL* examples in which the above rule produces missleading results. -- Andrzej [en:Andrew] Adam Filip anfi@priv.onet.pl anfi@xl.wp.pl All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing -- Edmund Burke (1729-1797)
participants (2)
-
Andrzej Adam Filip -
Randy Bush