[173947] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: So Philip Smith / Geoff Huston's CIDR report becomes worth a good
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Patrick W. Gilmore)
Thu Aug 14 10:34:45 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>
In-Reply-To: <m2lhqrmvbk.wl%randy@psg.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2014 10:34:36 -0400
To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Aug 14, 2014, at 02:36 , Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
>> It was kindly pointed out to me in private that my phrasing could be
>> misleading here.
>>=20
>> When ACL112 came into being, there were old equipment that were being
>> protected by the /19 filters. However, the filters were in place long
>> after those equipment were replaced.
>=20
> but by then it had driven all sorts of filtering and a negotiated (at
> danvers) treaty with the rirs to allocate on /19.
>=20
> another note from our private aside, it is worth noting that verio's
> satanic phyltres meant we did not even notice the 7007 and 128/9
> disasters. we read about them on nanog (or com-priv?).
Everything has pluses & minuses. The as7007 debacle was actually made =
far, far worse by Sprint's policies at the time, including a "-smb" =
(thanx, Dorian) build. Vinny may have made a major boo-boo by pumping =
BGP through RIPv1 then back into BGP, but the fact Sprint filtered only =
on AS path _and_ had an IOS which ignored withdrawals was the real =
killer.
Let's work on the primary protection of the INTERNET. When you were at =
Verio, you were driving a policy that you wanted, despite being clearly =
and objectively a tiny minority of the population in question. It might =
have made the Internet safer, but it had lots of bad side effects, =
including making it so that large networks have an advantage over small =
ones. Since those "small networks" are frequently the people paying the =
bills, and I am here to make money, I am not terribly happy with such =
policies.
A quick list off the top of my head: BCP38, filtering customer =
announcements properly, putting pressure on networks that needlessly =
deaggregate, ensuring information (e.g. "your 6500 is about to crash") =
is properly disseminated, etc. These will have far larger impacts, =
disadvantage no one, and will not lose you business like your previous =
policies did. Everyone wins.
All that said, I still abide by my primary rule: Your network, your =
decision. I am arguing for things we can all agree help everyone, not a =
select few.
On Aug 14, 2014, at 02:13 , Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
>>>> you mean your vendor won't give you the knobs to do it smartly =
([j]tac
>>>> tickets open for five years)? wonder why.
>>>=20
>>> Might be useful if you mentioned what you considered a "smart" way =
to
>>> trim the fib. But then you couldn't bitch and moan about people not
>>> understanding you, which is the real reason you post to NANOG.
>=20
> i did not get the original of this post, but the ad hominem speaks for
> it pathetic self.
Ad hominem implies I was going after your character without facts. =
However, the statement above _is_ fact - at least I believe so and given =
the private replies I received (and especially who replied), I am not =
alone.
Also, you calling an ad hominem attack "pathetic" is hilarious in more =
ways than I can count. (Again, not ad hominem. It is trivial to =
objectively prove that statement hypocritical at least, which I find =
amusing.)
--=20
TTFN,
patrick
