North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Has PSI been assigned network 1?

  • From: Karl Denninger, MCSNet
  • Date: Fri Apr 21 19:18:28 1995

> >> A half of them has to be explained how route announcement
> >> is different from broadcasting.  Forget about good
> >> citizenship -- they may be willing but they must be
> >> educated first.
> >>       [...]
> 
> >Educated by whom?
> 
> >It seems to me that this education is one of the services that small
> >ISPs ought to expect of their national service providers.
> 
> Huh?  Where did you see "education" in terms of service contracts?
> 
> If a person goes in the business it is assumed that (s)he knows
> the profession.  It is certainly not the case for many US-based Internet
> service providers.
> 
> The problem is that even a tiniest service provider doing BGP with
> some bigger provider can kill most of the Internet by injecting
> a single bogus route.  (I expect to hear more "RS will fix everything"
> speech at this point.  Relax.  It is not here yet; and we had occasions
> when bogus routes were killing ANS connectivity per-network filtering
> notwithstanding.  There are bugs and interesting incompatibilities :).
> 
> Such service provider doing multi-homed trick is simply a walking
> disaster.  That's why we're making sure all parties involved understand
> the routing policy, safe networking practices, etc before we enable
> BGP.
> 
> >Conversely, it seems that the rest of the community ought to expect
> >that national service providers will be responsible for educating
> >their customers, (e.g., ISPs).
> 
> Sounds kind of over-expectant.  Considering that even large service
> providers have real bad problems with finding engineers who know
> what they are doing.
> 
> The best we can do is to limit the damage by doing fascistic filtering,
> and work with those ISPs who want to listen and really want to learn.
> Others will be out of business earlier or later anyway.
> 
> --vadim

Really?

Fascistic filtering breaks connectivity.

So you trade a *risk* of broken connectivity for KNOWN broken connectivity?

Sounds like a poor trade to me, and one which, undertaken consciously and
with knowledge of the repercussions, leaves you with being less than a full
Internet connectivity provider.

After all, if you're filtering perfectly valid announcements then you are,
by definition, not providing connectivity to the "whole Internet" to the
best of your ability, are you?

The *better* path is to fix problems when they arise, and to drop peers if
necessary until the problem site(s) become educated and/or fix the bad
announcements being made to them.

Is this a big job, and one which requires technical folks that know what
they're doing -- on the job all the time?

Yep.

That's a cost of doing business in this game.

The RS doesn't *fix* this per-se, but it does certainly give you fair
warning of someone doing something known to be silly (like announcing a
path which you know is authoritatively yours).

--
--
Karl Denninger ([email protected])| MCSNet - The Finest Internet Connectivity
Modem: [+1 312 248-0900]     | (shell, PPP, SLIP, leased) in Chicagoland
Voice: [+1 312 248-8649]     | 7 POPs online through Chicago, all 28.8
Fax: [+1 312 248-9865]       | Email to "[email protected]" for more information
ISDN: Surf at Smokin' Speed  | WWW: http://www.mcs.net, gopher: gopher.mcs.net