[88159] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: preventing future situations like panix
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Bill Woodcock)
Mon Jan 23 15:16:01 2006
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 12:08:11 -0800 (PST)
From: Bill Woodcock <woody@pch.net>
To: Josh Karlin <karlinjf@cs.unm.edu>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <71051fe20601231147s1bf5dccqdbdce24ebfdd7b69@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006, Josh Karlin wrote:
> The idea is simply to consider 'suspicious' looking routes as a last
> resort in the decision process (~1 day). Thus if no alternative route
> for a prefix exists, the suspicious route is used regardless, no harm
> done.
It seems like most of the routers which would need to make this decision
wouldn't have adequate information upon which to do so... That is,
upstream routers would already have hidden one route or the other (except
with more-specifics). So this would mostly need to be implemented from
the core outwards, rather than by individual smaller operators first. And
once the core has done it, it's significantly less important whether the
fringes do it or not. When I say "core" here, I don't mean just the "tier
1" operators, I mean everybody with a significant degree of peering. Hm.
Well, maybe that's not such a big problem after all.
-Bill
