North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Third party routes
> Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 8:23:27 -0500 (CDT) > From: Sean Donelan <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > >There are two ways to have packets go where no BGP routes are announced -- > >by adding bogus static or whatever routes or by pointing default. Both > >are malicious. Note that accepting third party routes is also something > >not generally welcomed. If you're not given routes you're _not_ expected > >to send your packets. Consider that a "no trespassing" notice. > > MCI has found an intereesting variant on this. Whenever MCI has > backbone problems in Chicago, DRA suddenly sees all sorts of inbound > traffic from MCI at mae-east and mae-west. DRA usually ends up sending > the outbound traffic back through CIX since MCI won't announce their > routes to DRA at mae-east and mae-west. Let us look at the facts: (1) DRAnet has a customer connection to MCI. (2) Currently MCI peers with AS4136 at Mae-East and hears routes of DRAnet with next_hop pointing to maeeastplus-f0-0.dra.net. As a result, if the customer connection is lost, MCI would send traffic to DRAnet at Mae-East. This is normal routing bahavior. It seems to me that your question may be more related to why DRAnet routes are announced by AS4136 to MCI as a third-party routes (next-hop). If there is any violation of peering policy here, it does not look like that MCI is at fault. > > >Backbones are _private_ property. As such the operators are in their > >right to demand that others leave their equipment alone. > > True, but who has deeper pockets when mistakes happen. If you are a > multi-billion dollar provider, and one of your engineers has a late > night routing 'oops', having an agreement already in place with other > providers can mitigate some of risk. Do I get to sue MCI for the > traffic they send DRA at mae-east and mae-west without an agreement? Would you have better luck to sue the one that passes your routes without authorization? > > In the mean time, consider all those routers at the exchange points > you don't peer with as potential legal lottery winners waiting for > the first wayward packet to violate your "no trespassing" notice. > -- > Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO > Affiliation given for identification not representation -- Enke - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|