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.
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? 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
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 8:23:27 -0500 (CDT) From: Sean Donelan <SEAN@SDG.DRA.COM> To: nanog@merit.edu
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
participants (2)
-
Enke Chen -
Sean Donelan