route announcement question (political rather than technical)
Our present BGP policy states that if a customer has non-portable address space from another upstream ISP, the customer must provide us with an official letter from the owner of the IP address space which authorizes us to re-announce those routes. I feel that this is a reasonable and just policy, but we've been getting quite a bit of flack from customers who claim that nobody else is requiring this. Are other backbone providers really just announcing whatever their customers ask them to announce? Are we unreasonable in requiring permission to re-announce foreign netblocks? Is there any documentation that sets this down as policy or at least a BCP? Also, is it unreasonable to expect someone who wants to speak BGP to know how to make entries in the RADB, or at least read and follow the instructions? I'm getting the feeling that the latest tech briefings for executives are touting the wonders of BGP, 'cause I'm seeing a lot of pointy-haired bosses demanding it. ObNetops: router bgp xxxx neighbor 192.168.100.2 remote-as 64666 neighbor 192.168.100.2 route-map cust-do-not-readvertise in neighbor 192.168.100.2 route-map out-customer out Jeremiah Kristal Qwest Internet Solutions Manager, Network Services 201-319-5764 x284 internal
if a customer is multi-homed we will announce a (possibly improper) subset of the other tier one provider's space. if a customer is showing the good judgement of rehoming to us, we will announce the (possibly improper) subset of the other tier one provider's space for as long as the renumbering grace period of the other provider. we expect the same of others. randy
On Wed, 24 Mar 1999, Randy Bush wrote:
if a customer is multi-homed we will announce a (possibly improper) subset of the other tier one provider's space.
if a customer is showing the good judgement of rehoming to us, we will announce the (possibly improper) subset of the other tier one provider's space for as long as the renumbering grace period of the other provider.
we expect the same of others.
Of course, but do you require any documentation from their other provider that they are allowed to re-announce those addresses? The issue isn't whether we should re-announce, but what documentation we should require before doing so. Jeremiah Jeremiah Kristal Qwest Internet Solutions Manager, Network Services 201-319-5764 x284 internal
do you require any documentation from their other provider that they are allowed to re-announce those addresses? The issue isn't whether we should re-announce, but what documentation we should require before doing so.
uh, we're kinda on a first name basis with our peers at the other tier ones. formality is usually not needed. when one of their less clued/connected departments gets involved, we usually count on the clueful to handle their own organization's internal issues. most folk really do understand how the game is played. probably verio stresses it more than most, due to much address space still swipped into the name of the isps we acquired and there is major administrivia (legal sale documents and all) to update it. but most of our friends know that too. occasionally we hit an peer's admin person who's been kept in a dark room for some years. again we could on the clueful to pass it on. randy
Randy. You are not 100% right. Often the XX's customer is forced to use another ISP for internet access (for example, customer change location and could not order digital trunk from the new one), but can't renumbered quickly. And so on... You can anounce specifics of the other ISP, and it allow this customer to work for some time and be successed. Through, some cases (if you lost external connectivity, for example, but you have peering connectivity with XX, for example) cause you to use bandwidth of XX, or XX can be acused in waisting routing-table-space, or the prefix-length limitations (by such ISP as Sprint) cause some mirrouting, etc etc... THis means we always treat such decisions as _temporary_ and always ask permission fro the net-block owner to do it; and vice versa. Alex. ---- On Wed, 24 Mar 1999, Randy Bush wrote:
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 09:46:29 -0800 (PST) From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> To: Jeremiah Kristal <jeremiah@fs.IConNet.NET> Cc: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: route announcement question (political rather than technical)
do you require any documentation from their other provider that they are allowed to re-announce those addresses? The issue isn't whether we should re-announce, but what documentation we should require before doing so.
uh, we're kinda on a first name basis with our peers at the other tier ones. formality is usually not needed.
when one of their less clued/connected departments gets involved, we usually count on the clueful to handle their own organization's internal issues.
most folk really do understand how the game is played. probably verio stresses it more than most, due to much address space still swipped into the name of the isps we acquired and there is major administrivia (legal sale documents and all) to update it. but most of our friends know that too. occasionally we hit an peer's admin person who's been kept in a dark room for some years. again we could on the clueful to pass it on.
randy
Aleksei Roudnev, Network Operations Center, Relcom, Moscow (+7 095) 194-19-95 (Network Operations Center Hot Line),(+7 095) 230-41-41, N 13729 (pager) (+7 095) 196-72-12 (Support), (+7 095) 194-33-28 (Fax)
Our present BGP policy states that if a customer has non-portable address space from another upstream ISP, the customer must provide us with an official letter from the owner of the IP address space which authorizes us to re-announce those routes. I feel that this is a reasonable and just policy, but we've been getting quite a bit of flack from customers who claim that nobody else is requiring this.
I am not sure about USA, but it's usial practic here in Russia - we ask e-mail permission from the network owner, and hardly recommend to change address (and warn about _we are doing it at your own risk). The problems are boths political and technical - Internet is not build todays for such _by-specific_ customers and often, if we anounce the specific of the other provider XX, we use partically the bandwidth of XX (esp. if we have peering aggreement with XX). Alex. ----
Are other backbone providers really just announcing whatever their customers ask them to announce? Are we unreasonable in requiring permission to re-announce foreign netblocks? Is there any documentation that sets this down as policy or at least a BCP? Also, is it unreasonable to expect someone who wants to speak BGP to know how to make entries in the RADB, or at least read and follow the instructions? I'm getting the feeling that the latest tech briefings for executives are touting the wonders of BGP, 'cause I'm seeing a lot of pointy-haired bosses demanding it.
ObNetops: router bgp xxxx neighbor 192.168.100.2 remote-as 64666 neighbor 192.168.100.2 route-map cust-do-not-readvertise in neighbor 192.168.100.2 route-map out-customer out
Jeremiah Kristal Qwest Internet Solutions Manager, Network Services 201-319-5764 x284 internal
Aleksei Roudnev, Network Operations Center, Relcom, Moscow (+7 095) 194-19-95 (Network Operations Center Hot Line),(+7 095) 230-41-41, N 13729 (pager) (+7 095) 196-72-12 (Support), (+7 095) 194-33-28 (Fax)
participants (3)
-
Alex P. Rudnev -
Jeremiah Kristal -
Randy Bush