|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical RE: The Cidr Report
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005, Justin Ryburn wrote: > I have recently heard companies saying their reasoning for de-aggregation was > 1) to protect against outages to their customer base when a more specific of > their aggregate was announced somewhere else and 2) if they are getting DDOS > attacked on a given /24 they can just drop that advertisement and only affect > part of their customer base. 1) this only provides partial protection, even if you announce a /24 i can still announce my own /24 and get some of your traffic 2) either they are operating networks that cant support their business and i dont see why we should bale them out or in the cases where certain hosts are accepted by us as targets (ircnets etc) you could argue to obtain a discrete /24 which is the better evil than taking a /16 and breaking it down to take out a /24 i'm not keen on this latter idea, what if i operate an anti-ddos specialist isp, hosting ircnets, gambling, security sites etc - do i put each host in a /24 and waste a whole /16 with a couple hundred customers? i strongly believe if you want to be an autonomous internet provider then you should be able to run your network by accepted means not thro cheap hacks > As technically savvy folks, we may not agree with this line of reasoning. > However, keep in mind that the technically savvy folks are not always the ones > making the decisions within a company. Just because someone has enable access > and clue does not mean they have the authority to make certain decisions. > Most of those people probably spend a large amount of their time arguing with > the decision makers to try and do the right thing but at some point they lose > those arguments. if their suppliers/peers disagree strongly they would not be able to present these options in the first place.. lack of regulation has its downsides it would seem.. Steve
|