[49961] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: No one behind the wheel at WorldCom
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Frank Scalzo)
Sat Jul 13 21:21:41 2002
Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2002 21:21:16 -0400
From: "Frank Scalzo" <frank.scalzo@amerinex.net>
To: "Stephen Stuart" <stuart@tech.org>, <nanog@merit.edu>
Cc: "Paul Schultz" <pschultz@pschultz.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
What vendor by default does not take action on no-export???
Certainly cisco and juniper both honor it by default.=20
To get back to the original question of 63/9 being announced it can be =
entertaining to watch for other fishy routes to show up in the routing =
table, like 63/8. I know of at least one outage caused because someone =
advertised a route like that. The underlying problem, is that there are =
no good widely deployed solutions for controlling what the large =
backbones inject into the routing table at peering points. A large tier =
1 deaggregates towards another bad things happen. It would be nice if =
there was a supportable way to only allow one isp to advertise =
appropriate routes to another. The IRR stuff is a neat idea but I dont =
think many ISPs trust it enough to use it to build ACLs.
-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Stuart [mailto:stuart@tech.org]
Sent: Sat 7/13/2002 7:00 PM
To: nanog@merit.edu
Cc: Paul Schultz
Subject: Re: No one behind the wheel at WorldCom=20
> I'm wondering how many folks out there choose not to honor this
> community and why. If anyone on the list chooses not to I'd be
> interested to hear (either on-list or off) the reasonings behind it.
Please also respond if you weren't aware that you have to explicitly
implement the policy of honoring no-export - while the community vaue
is "well-known," the policy is not built-in.
