On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 9:56 AM Mark Tinka <mark@tinka.africa> wrote:
On 10/5/21 15:40, Mark Tinka wrote:
>
> I don't disagree with you one bit. It's for that exact reason that we
> built:
>
> https://as37100.net/
>
> ... not for us, but specifically for other random network operators
> around the world whom we may never get to drink a crate of wine with.
Can someone explain to me, preferably in baby words, why so many providers view information like
https://as37100.net/?bgp as secret/proprietary?
I've interacted with numerous providers who require an NDA or pinky-swear to get a list of their communities -- is this really just 1: security through obscurity, 2: an artifact of the culture of not sharing, 3: an attempt to seem cool by making you jump through hoops to prove your worthiness, 4: some weird 'mah competitors won't be able to figure out my secret sauce without knowing that 17 means Asia, or 5: something else?
Yes, some providers do publish these (usually on the website equivalent of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard.”), and PeeringDB has definitely helped, but I still don't understand many providers stance on this...
W
>
> I have to say that it has likely cut e-mails to our NOC as well as
> overall pain in half, if not more.
What I forgot to add, however, is that unlike Facebook, we aren't a
major content provider. So we don't have a need to parallel our DNS
resiliency with our service resiliency, in terms of 3rd party
infrastructure. If our network were to melt, we'll already be getting it
from our eyeballs.
If we had content of note that was useful to, say, a handful-billion
people around the world, we'd give some thought - however complex - to
having critical services running on 3rd party infrastructure.
Mark.