[27333] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Blech!
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Deepak Jain)
Sat Feb 12 14:14:52 2000
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 14:11:08 -0500 (EST)
From: Deepak Jain <deepak@ai.net>
To: Alex Bligh <amb@gxn.net>
Cc: Paul Ferguson <ferguson@cisco.com>, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <E12Jgld-0005vH-00@sapphire.noc.gxn.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0002121409030.23476-100000@aries.ai.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Alex -
Have any of your peers complained? I can't imagine anyone caring
(strenuously) if a peer applies filters to bogus addresses. Every peer I
have dealt with for a matter like that, while it may take time to get to
the right people, have made no complaints about us doing the filtering or
even adding the filtering (on a temporary basis) to their own border/core
routers.
Deepak Jain
AiNET
On Sat, 12 Feb 2000, Alex Bligh wrote:
>
> Paul,
>
> > Is it within the realm of possibility that ISP's will
> > start to craft SLA's, peering & transit agreements, to
> > include who is responsible for ingress filtering?
>
> It is in the realm of fact. Our (*) agreements with our customers
> specifically prevent them from sending packets with source
> IP addresses outside agreed ranges, and have done for
> close on 2 years. Our peering agreements (and this is in
> the LINX template agreement too, which shares the same
> author) have provisions which make the peer responsible
> for ensuring they aren't sending spoofed source addresses.
>
> I know several other people do this too. We have not yet
> tested enforceability, though we have used the existence
> of the clause to justify unilateral application of filters
> in one or two occurrences.
>
> (*) 'Our' in this context means GX Networks a.k.a.
> Concentric Europe. I am unfamiliar with the US
> situation.
>
> --
> Alex Bligh
> VP Core Network, Concentric Network Corporation
> (formerly GX Networks, Xara Networks)
>
>
>
>
