[33496] in North American Network Operators' Group
How does one make not playing nice with each other scale? (Was: net.terrorism)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Anne Marcel)
Sat Jan 13 09:39:12 2001
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 15:37:12 +0100 (CET)
From: Anne Marcel <marcel@our.domaintje.com>
To: NANOG <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <20010109150704.C29201@outtolunch.merit.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.3.96.1010113152813.63656A-100000@our.domaintje.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Hi,
There is no need to deaggregate the /16 that contain nullrouted /32's.
This information is (in this case) already available from AS7777 as a
multihop eBGP feed.
The information obtained from this feed could be used to route blocked
traffic to other transit providers then abovenet.
- marcel
#include <disclaimer.std>
On Tue, 9 Jan 2001, Jeff Haas wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 08:31:40AM -0500, Alex wrote:
> > It's commonly accepted that if you announce a route, you can carry the
> > packet to the intended and correct destination.
>
> As much as I disagree with many of Sabri's opinions, the statement
> above is what one normally thinks announcing a network means:
> You originate it, you'll carry it. If you propogate the announcement,
> you'll carry it.
>
> If some party decides that they're not going to route traffic
> for a particular block, they should de-aggregate the announcement.
>
> Yes, I realize what this does to the routing table size. Yes, I
> realize what this does to reachability (generating more specifics
> by proxy). But you're at least being honest what you're doing with
> the network in question.
>
> It would be convenient if there was an agreed upon methodology for
> networks that filter certain hosts can inject informational routes
> to let people know that announcements from them are "poisoned".
> Perhaps this kind of thing belongs in the IRR. But forcing people
> to proxy deaggregate internally to deal with messy routes is just rude.
>
> Perhaps this whole thread can be summarized as, "How does one make
> not playing nice with each other scale?"
