RE: No one behind the wheel at WorldCom
What vendor by default does not take action on no-export??? Certainly cisco and juniper both honor it by default. To get back to the original question of 63/9 being announced it can be entertaining to watch for other fishy routes to show up in the routing table, like 63/8. I know of at least one outage caused because someone advertised a route like that. The underlying problem, is that there are no good widely deployed solutions for controlling what the large backbones inject into the routing table at peering points. A large tier 1 deaggregates towards another bad things happen. It would be nice if there was a supportable way to only allow one isp to advertise appropriate routes to another. The IRR stuff is a neat idea but I dont think many ISPs trust it enough to use it to build ACLs. -----Original Message----- From: Stephen Stuart [mailto:stuart@tech.org] Sent: Sat 7/13/2002 7:00 PM To: nanog@merit.edu Cc: Paul Schultz Subject: Re: No one behind the wheel at WorldCom
I'm wondering how many folks out there choose not to honor this community and why. If anyone on the list chooses not to I'd be interested to hear (either on-list or off) the reasonings behind it.
Please also respond if you weren't aware that you have to explicitly implement the policy of honoring no-export - while the community vaue is "well-known," the policy is not built-in.
On Sat, Jul 13, 2002 at 09:21:16PM -0400, Frank Scalzo wrote:
The underlying problem, is that there are no good widely deployed solutions for controlling what the large backbones inject into the routing table at peering points. A large tier 1 deaggregates towards another bad things happen. It would be nice if there was a supportable way to only allow one isp to advertise appropriate routes to another. The IRR stuff is a neat idea but I dont think many ISPs trust it enough to use it to build ACLs.
If everyone maintained current IRR entries, it would work just fine. The real problem is there are still a lot of networks who's idea of filtering their customers is a prefix-limit or a filter you have to call or email in manually. The only people who actually maintain accurate IRR entries (other than the occational net kook) are those whose transit depends on it. Trying to convert an existing customer base to IRR is a nightmarish task, some of these large established providers will probably NEVER do it unless there is some actual motivation. Supposidly Level 3 requires IRR filtering on their peers, but do they actually try to enforce this? I know they do an excellent job maintaining their own IRR entries, but I'm certain they peer with people who don't have a current db. Probably not, since the vast majority of their current peers don't meet their current peering requirements. :) -- Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras PGP Key ID: 0x138EA177 (67 29 D7 BC E8 18 3E DA B2 46 B3 D8 14 36 FE B6)
On Sat, Jul 13, 2002 at 10:20:01PM -0400, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
Supposidly Level 3 requires IRR filtering on their peers, but do they actually try to enforce this? I know they do an excellent job maintaining their own IRR entries, but I'm certain they peer with people who don't have a current db. Probably not, since the vast majority of their current peers don't meet their current peering requirements. :)
whois -h whois.radb.net 64.206.3.0/20 ... route: 64.206.3.0/24 descr: Proxy-registered route object for Sprint :-) origin: AS7136 remarks: auto-generated route object remarks: this next line gives the robot something to recognize remarks: The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. remarks: remarks: This route object is for a Sprint customer route remarks: which is being exported under this origin AS. remarks: remarks: This route object was created because no existing remarks: route object with the same origin was found, and remarks: we really just wanted to help out those poor Sprint remarks: folks who have an aversion to registering routes. remarks: remarks: We hope they have a sense of humor. remarks: remarks: Please contact WeLoveThoseCrazySprintFolks@Level3.net remarks: if you have any questions regarding this object. mnt-by: SPRINT-MNT changed: WeLoveThoseCrazySprintFolks@Level3.net 20020626
Hehehe ok someone answered this question for me privately... For example: source: LEVEL3 -- Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras PGP Key ID: 0x138EA177 (67 29 D7 BC E8 18 3E DA B2 46 B3 D8 14 36 FE B6)
participants (3)
-
Frank Scalzo -
Richard A Steenbergen -
Stephen Stuart