Re: So -- what did happen to Panix?
the scheme that josh karlin has been advocating in pretty good bgp involved only supressing a doubtful announcement when you have a better, more trusted announcement.
Not a doubtful announcement, a novel announcement. Not a better announcement, a more usual announcement. The trust part, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Don't get me wrong - I think basing decision on some "trusted" summary of historical behavior is going to be important, unless and until we get some approach that gives a more deterministic answer. But I do believe that we need to consider carefully how this will play with dynamic, particularly unplanned, changes in who is announcing what. If there turn out to be cases where dynamic, particularly unplanned, changes get rejected by this technique in favor of stale data, then there should be consideration given to how to amend the scheme to prevent that or suggest operational practices to get around it. --Sandy
sandy, On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 08:29:45AM -0500, sandy@tislabs.com wrote:
the scheme that josh karlin has been advocating in pretty good bgp involved only supressing a doubtful announcement when you have a better, more trusted announcement.
Not a doubtful announcement, a novel announcement. Not a better announcement, a more usual announcement. The trust part, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.
i just don't think you're following along. i think we're talking about different things. read josh, stephanie forrest and jennifer rexford's paper: http://www.cs.unm.edu/~treport/tr/05-10/pgbgp.pdf
Don't get me wrong - I think basing decision on some "trusted" summary of historical behavior is going to be important, unless and until we get some approach that gives a more deterministic answer. But I do believe that we need to consider carefully how this will play with dynamic, particularly unplanned, changes in who is announcing what.
josh's scheme only comes into play when there are two, competing origination patterns. in this case the question is just which one to believe. agreed that we should be careful with anything that reduces the ability of people to change routing dynamically. but let's remember: that ability is already constrained by the fact that responsible providers use prefix filters and require some kind of out-of-band (IRR, letter, email) validation of prefix ownership. routing a new prefix with a new origination pattern is not especially dynamic now, so let's not worry about throwing out a baby that's not even in the bath. t. -- _____________________________________________________________________ todd underwood chief of operations & security renesys - internet intelligence todd@renesys.com www.renesys.com
participants (2)
-
sandy＠tislabs.com -
Todd Underwood