hwb@upeksa.sdsc.edu (Hans-Werner Braun) writes: It even predates the T1/... NSFNET backbone. We already used something like that for the 56kbps Fuzzball based NSFNET backbone. In a sense, the RIPE db etc. are latecomers here. Susan is correct, the NSFNET implemented and formalized the routing data base in evolutionary stages.

Indeed there is an evoloution of routing policy databases/registries. 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. We weren't more clever or had more foresight, we simply had the need earlier. I think it has been a good decision by the RA team to use this technology and to contribute to its development rather than inventing something new right away. Given the resources I would hope for more output in the way of tools etc. but I see it coming now.

Often despite complaints from many sites that wanted free and uncontrolled flow of routing information.

This is a great misconception about routing registries which comes from the time of the single backbone model. The routing registry and the backbone were then operated by the same people and used to enforce The Routing Policy. The situation is different now. Each ISP sets and enforces their routing policy. The routing registry only supports them in this. Of course a good routing policy is to not propagate routes to address space which is not assigned and to generally filter announcements from customers. But there is no way to use the routing registry to force ISPs to do reasonable things.

I am not arguing about whether the RIPE and the RA DB should or should not be merged, just that there is a history to the steps taken, and reconciling into a homogenious DB (format) would have to be a concious effort by the parties seeing mutual benefit. Not that it should not happen otherwise, it just won't, given project priorities.

I am pessimistic at all. All routing registies use the same schema or very very similar ones. They currently call come from the ripe-181 specifications which are based on input from the RA people. The RADB, RIPE RR, MCI RR and all the others really form a global Internet RR which is quite useful already and can be made more useful. Two things are needed now: 1) Improve active maintenance by the registrars. This will by itself lead to better alignment between registries and remove duplicate registrations. 2) Produce and *deploy* more useful tools. If this is done well, ISPs will use those registries more and register in them because it is useful and interest. Daniel