[4854] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Third party routes
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Enke Chen)
Mon Sep 30 11:01:46 1996
To: Sean Donelan <SEAN@sdg.dra.com>
cc: nanog@merit.edu, enke@mci.net
In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 30 Sep 1996 08:23:27 CDT."
<960930082327.1f89d@SDG.DRA.COM>
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 10:49:39 -0400
From: Enke Chen <enke@mci.net>
> Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 8:23:27 -0500 (CDT)
> From: Sean Donelan <SEAN@SDG.DRA.COM>
> To: nanog@merit.edu
> >There are two ways to have packets go where no BGP routes are announced --
> >by adding bogus static or whatever routes or by pointing default. Both
> >are malicious. Note that accepting third party routes is also something
> >not generally welcomed. If you're not given routes you're _not_ expected
> >to send your packets. Consider that a "no trespassing" notice.
>
> MCI has found an intereesting variant on this. Whenever MCI has
> backbone problems in Chicago, DRA suddenly sees all sorts of inbound
> traffic from MCI at mae-east and mae-west. DRA usually ends up sending
> the outbound traffic back through CIX since MCI won't announce their
> routes to DRA at mae-east and mae-west.
Let us look at the facts:
(1) DRAnet has a customer connection to MCI.
(2) Currently MCI peers with AS4136 at Mae-East and hears routes of
DRAnet with next_hop pointing to maeeastplus-f0-0.dra.net.
As a result, if the customer connection is lost, MCI would send
traffic to DRAnet at Mae-East. This is normal routing bahavior.
It seems to me that your question may be more related to why
DRAnet routes are announced by AS4136 to MCI as a third-party
routes (next-hop). If there is any violation of peering policy
here, it does not look like that MCI is at fault.
>
> >Backbones are _private_ property. As such the operators are in their
> >right to demand that others leave their equipment alone.
>
> True, but who has deeper pockets when mistakes happen. If you are a
> multi-billion dollar provider, and one of your engineers has a late
> night routing 'oops', having an agreement already in place with other
> providers can mitigate some of risk. Do I get to sue MCI for the
> traffic they send DRA at mae-east and mae-west without an agreement?
Would you have better luck to sue the one that passes your routes
without authorization?
>
> In the mean time, consider all those routers at the exchange points
> you don't peer with as potential legal lottery winners waiting for
> the first wayward packet to violate your "no trespassing" notice.
> --
> Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO
> Affiliation given for identification not representation
-- Enke
