[address-policy-wg] IXP peering lan reachability
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IXP peering lan reachability
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IXP peering lan reachability
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Carlos Friaças
cfriacas at fccn.pt
Tue Oct 24 13:12:05 CEST 2017
Hi, On Tue, 24 Oct 2017, Nick Hilliard wrote: > Gert Doering wrote: >> The *absence* of the route is a very strong indicator that no other >> services than directly peering-related are sitting on that network, no? > > or that the holder is squatting the space, or that it's being used for > connectivity which is unrelated to the standard DFZ (e.g. l3vpn p2p > addressing), or that it's just not being used at that time, or... > > By all means, the RIPE NCC should flag things as a problem if it sees > server farms configured on an assigned ixp range, or sees traceroutes > ending up in residential customer, or whatever, but the presence or > absence of a prefix in the dfz, per se, does not mean anything. I understand it as a simple clue. Clues sometimes lead nowhere... Btw, is the NCC already monitoring this address space's usage somehow? (i may have missed this bit from Andrea's presentation, i didn't catch it from the beginning). Or we are simply relying on stat.ripe.net, atlas, and the like...? Cheers, Carlos > Nick >
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IXP peering lan reachability
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IXP peering lan reachability
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]