[25105] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IS-IS reference
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Vadim Antonov)
Mon Sep 13 18:41:00 1999
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1999 15:39:16 -0700
From: Vadim Antonov <avg@kotovnik.com>
To: amb@gxn.net
Cc: alex@Relcom.EU.net, nanog@merit.edu
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
I think the right plan of action should be: a) design numbering plan allowing
aggregation on per-location basis; b) design a dynamically-routed redundant
backbone and c) attach tree-like access networks to the backbobne.
The backbone should not take _any_ routing information from the leaf networks.
It would also help to keep strict access controls, and separate backbone routers
from leaf access routers, so only the authorized backbone engineers can change
things in those.
Leaf networks should do static routing, and no proxy ARP. This way any damage from
badly behaving hosts or apps is limited to the segment they're on.
And don't do multicasting.
May be we should start defensive networking classes? :)
--vadim
