Re: Question on % of good routes and plea for an RA mail list was Re: Routing registry was Re: Sprint BGP filters in 207.x.x.x?

["Steven J. Richardson" <]

  >From list-admin@localhost Thu Jan  4 05:03:27 1996
  >Message-Id: <9601040929.AA14593@localhost>
  >To: hwb@localhost (Hans-Werner Braun)
  >Cc: nanog@localhost, RIPE Routing WG routing-wg@localhost
  >Subject: Question on % of good routes and plea for an RA mail list was Re: Routing registry was Re: Sprint BGP filters in 207.x.x.x? 
  >In-Reply-To: Your message of Wed, 03 Jan 1996 15:21:50 PST.
  >             <199601032321.PAA24966@localhost 
  >References: <199601032321.PAA24966@localhost 
  >From: Daniel Karrenberg <Daniel.Karrenberg@localhost
  >Date: Thu, 04 Jan 1996 10:29:49 +0100
  >Sender: Daniel.Karrenberg@localhost
  
  >The early NSFnet one was done to configure a single backbone.  Remember
  >that EGP was the state-of-the-art.  NSFNet provided last resort routing
  >and everyone was happy.  More complex registries were not needed to keep
  >track of this even when "back doors" appeared. 
  >
  >In Europe the situation was not like that at all.  Despite great efforts
  >we were never blessed with a single pan-European backbone or even a
  >last-resort routing service.  This is why RIPE developed a routing
  >registry that was capable of being useful in a general topology of
  >indepoendent ISPs. 
  
  FYI:

	Lest anyone think that the PRDB was single-backbone-specific in
	_design_ or capability (it pretty much was in terms of data), let
	me note that, when Andy Adams and I rewrote the PRDB from a SPIRES
	DB to a RDBMS (with help from Tom Libert and Sue Hares), we explicitly
	designed in the ability to include data from other backbones.

	This was initially done to support both the T1 and T3 backbones, but
	it could easily have supported other backbones as well.

  >Daniel


	Steve Richardson/Merit