[7397] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Alpha test of MAE filtering capability
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Alec H. Peterson)
Tue Feb 4 09:13:39 1997
From: "Alec H. Peterson" <ahp@hilander.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 09:02:30 -0500
To: young@mci.net (Jeff Young)
Cc: RWilson@genuity.net (Robert Wilson), feldman@mfst.com ('feldman@mfst.com'),
asp@partan.com ('Andrew Partan'), nanog@merit.edu ('nanog@merit.edu')
In-Reply-To: <199702041327.IAA06958@postoffice.Reston.mci.net>; from "Jeff Young" on Feb 4, 1997 08:27:16 -0500
On Feb 4, 1997, Jeff Young wrote:
> i, for one didn't understand the request.
>
> hypothetically, if mci enters into
> an agreement with MAE E/W to allow a list of mac header addresses
> to have access to our port on a gigaswitch, what reason is there
> for MAE E/W to share that list with anyone else? if there is no
> peering arrangement between two networks you could assume that the
> the mac header of one network's interface isn't on the list, right?
I think what would be equally as useful (and would not disclose
peering arrangements) is a list of ports that have filtering in place
(this assumes that everyone will not be filtering, which is not
necessarily a good assumption). That way, if an ops person cannot
access a port, she/he can check if filtering is active and go from
there.
Alec
--
+------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
|Alec Peterson - ahp@hilander.com | Erols Internet Services, INC. |
|Network Engineer | Springfield, VA. |
+------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
