[195970] in North American Network Operators' Group
Settle Free Peering - Default Route Abuse Monitoring
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Raymond Beaudoin)
Sun Sep 24 15:32:33 2017
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Raymond Beaudoin <raymond.beaudoin@icarustech.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2017 14:32:09 -0500
To: "North American Network Operators' Group" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Hello, Everyone!
Many SFP agreements include terms that the peering link will not be used as
an upstream with static defaults. A few examples are provided below.
*h. must agree not to abuse the peering relationship by engaging in
activities such as but not limited to: pointing a default route at the
other or otherwise forwarding traffic for destinations not explicitly
advertised, resetting next-hop, selling or giving next-hop to others;*
Source: http://www.level3.com/en/legal/ip-traffic-exchange-policy/
*2.6. Neither Network shall point default into or transit the other Network
where that network has*
*not advertised a route for the destination in question.*
Source: http://www.zayo.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/ZayoPeeringPolicy.pdf
How is this monitored and tracked? Are ACLs applied to help enforce this
(seems to be limited at scale)? Flow export and alarming? Analytics and
anomalous behavior detection? Common professional courtesy?
Thanks so much for any insight you may have. I'd like to ensure I'm
following all best practices when in IX and peer situations.
-Raymond Beaudoin
