[46073] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Telco's write best practices for packet switching networks
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joe Abley)
Tue Mar 12 16:13:59 2002
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 16:13:23 -0500
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v481)
Cc: Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com>, nanog@merit.edu
To: Ratul Mahajan <ratul@cs.washington.edu>
From: Joe Abley <jabley@automagic.org>
In-Reply-To: <20020312121730.M25525-100000@krypton.cs.washington.edu>
Message-Id: <FCD8C6C1-35FD-11D6-ABD2-00039312C852@automagic.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Tuesday, March 12, 2002, at 03:23 , Ratul Mahajan wrote:
>> Perhaps the attacks on core routers aren't bad enough to justify such
>> a drastic step yet. I get conflicting signals from engineers still
>> working. Some say they see attacks all the time, others say they've
>> never seen one on their core routers.
>
> On the downside -- this is yet another instance of conflict between
> research and operations. Being able to address the (core) routers
> directly is an important capability researchers use for tasks like
> topology discovery and path/routing characterization. Of course, if
> researchers can talk to the routers, so can the attackers .....
Just because routing protocols use addressing or protocols which are not
globally routable doesn't mean that core routers can't be addressed
directly. IS-IS neighbours use NSAP addressing and OSI transport to
exchange routing information, for example, but traceroute still works.
Joe
