[97825] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Level(3) filtering (was Yahoo outage summary)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Chris L. Morrow)
Mon Jul 9 23:10:59 2007
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 03:10:00 +0000 (GMT)
From: "Chris L. Morrow" <christopher.morrow@verizonbusiness.com>
In-reply-to: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0707091609190.21826@rintintin.colorado.edu>
To: Kevin Epperson <Epperson@Colorado.EDU>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Mon, 9 Jul 2007, Kevin Epperson wrote:
>
> There is some misinformation in previous posts that I would like to
> clarify on the Level 3 side of things.
>
and I'd apologize for hinting that that might be the problem :(
> Level 3's own registry and known public route registries. As several
> folks have pointed out there are minimal checks for the validity of the
> source information.
this was what bit panix/edison I believe... :(
>
> As an aside I see an increase in the number of downstreams asking for
> as-path filtering or *no* filtering usually with justifications of ISP X
> doesn't require us to register routes or just does as-path filtering. In
> my opinion that is bad news for everyone as documented in numerous
> BCPs, presentations and route-leaks.
agreed, there is this trend, it's disturbing :( (to me atleast) In the
number of customer conversations I've had about this it's always sort of
surprising that people think it's 'ok' to not have a prefix-list :( cause,
guess what: "if you don't have one and they don't have one... THEY will
get you eventually"
