----------

From: Avi Freedman Subject: Re: Best way to deal with bad advertisements? Date: Saturday, September 28, 1996 11:35 AM

3) You can post to NANOG and other lists in an attempt to embarrass/ get someone who knows the jokers to poke them.

IMVHO.. These are some of the problems that has resulted in some (if not all) of the major networks to re-evaluate thier routing policies. Weve had some routing problems generated by both customers and peers, including: A Peer re-advertising our routes to thier peers (and not being able to handle the traffic), causing service degradations. The same black-holing discussed previously (accidental). A multi-homed customer advertising our backbone routes. And of course the ever-present flapping peer who runs your router CPU out the ceiling. Because of problems like these, and the general trustworthiness of BGP4, the re-evaluation of peer requirements have been all but forced upon major backbone providers. Just imagine if you were UUNET, (or Sprint, or MCI, or anyone with heavy backbone traffic in general) and one of your BGP4 routing partners black holed part of your backbone... I've spent alot of time in a government regulated industry, and it's becoming evident that if we don't provide some sort of self-regulation, the government has a high likelyhood of sticking thier noses into this industry. Something gave us some freedom in my previous career was a self-policing industry organization. The whole idea was to not give the government any legitimate reason to have to regulate the industry. It was too late, but it did provide a little more freedom, that having the government do all policing. Pretty soon, something is going to happen here thats going to result in a fairly strong financial affect on some entity that will appeal to some authority, and the sprial will begin. It's my suggestion that the industry discuss the possiblity, and obviously problems of forming such an entity. It seems that the right people to start such a discussion will be present at NANOG. Just to toss some fuel on the fire, some topics might be..... * The evolution of peering agreements into "Traffic Intechange Settlements" * Methods of determining "value" of exchanged traffic. * A standard policy or requirement for peering at public exchanges etc... just a drop in the bucket. I'd be more than interested in such a discussion, BTW. Chris A. Icide Nap.Net