Home page logo
/

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

RE: AS8584 taking over the internet
From: Goldstein_William () bns att com
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 98 23:52:11 -0400

PSINet recently announced free private peering for any ISP buying
transit.

How might this affect the frequency of AS8584-type problems?
Bill Goldstein
Senior Internet Specialist
AT&T
wgoldstein () att com
TEL:(412)642-7288

   ----------
   From:       jprovo
   Sent:       Thursday, April 09, 1998 10:44 PM
   To:         nanog
   Cc:         jprovo
   Subject:    Re: AS8584 taking over the internet
   
   Received: from speedy1.bns.att.com (speedy1.bns.att.com
   [135.177.97.230])
      by pawayn01.bns.att.com (8.8.6/1.3) with ESMTP id WAA13155
      for <Goldstein_William/bcs_pawayn01 () pawayn01 bns att com>; Thu, 9
   Apr 1998 22:53:16 -0400 (EDT)
   Received: from kcig1.att.att.com (kcig1.att.att.com [135.38.78.194])
   by speedy1.bns.att.com (8.7.3/2.5) with ESMTP id VAA18513 for
   <goldstein_william () bns att com>; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 21:54:41 -0500 (EST)
   Received: (from nuucp () localhost)
      by kcig1.att.att.com (AT&T/GW-1.0) id VAA14235;
      Thu, 9 Apr 1998 21:53:11 -0500 (CDT)
   >Received: by kcgw1.att.com; Thu Apr  9 21:53 CDT 1998
   Received: by kcgw1.att.com; Thu Apr  9 21:53 CDT 1998
   Received: from localhost (daemon () localhost)
      by merit.edu (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA26613;
      Thu, 9 Apr 1998 22:46:55 -0400 (EDT)
   Received: by merit.edu (bulk_mailer v1.5); Thu, 9 Apr 1998 22:44:57
   -0400
   Received: (from majordom () localhost)
      by merit.edu (8.8.7/8.8.5) id WAA26537
      for nanog-outgoing; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 22:44:56 -0400 (EDT)
   Received: from strato-fe0.ultra.net (strato-fe0.ultra.net
   [146.115.8.190])
      by merit.edu (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id WAA26533
      for <nanog () merit org>; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 22:44:52 -0400 (EDT)
   Received: from noc.ultra.net (noc.ultra.net [199.232.56.9]) by
   strato-fe0.ultra.net (8.8.8/ult.n14767) with ESMTP id WAA07955 for
   <nanog () merit org>; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 22:44:51 -0400 (EDT)
   Received: (from jprovo () localhost) by noc.ultra.net
   (8.8.5/8.6.9/0.2jzp) id WAA12336 for nanog () merit org; Thu, 9 Apr 1998
   22:44:50 -0400 (EDT)
   Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1998 22:44:50 -0400 (EDT)
   From: Joe Provo - Network Architect <jprovo () ultra net>
   Message-Id: <199804100244.WAA12336 () noc ultra net>
   To: nanog () merit org
   Subject: Re: AS8584 taking over the internet
   Sender: owner-nanog () merit edu
   Content-Type: text
   --------------------------------------------------
   
   [snip]
   > I believe that the implication was that: 1) they're not directly
   > connected to any of the major _US_ backbones, and 2) they're on the
   > other end of a fairly thin hose.
   > 
   > And they can _still_ hose things this badly.
   > 
   > This speaks not well of the architecture involved.
   
   No, no, it speaks _well_ for the architecture - equal opportunity
   hosage!  There is no backone-hasage cabale; all that enter into bgp
   relationships can have a shot at hurting the net...
   
   ObContent:
     - yes, filters are Good.  customers, especially if new to
   complicated
       things, should have both as-path and prefix filters placed
   against 
       them.  the questions to ask oneself regarding peers is "how
   clueful
       are they, really?  and do their procedures allow only these
   clueful
       into the boxes?  am I willing to tie my performance/reliability/
       reputation to theirs in this intimate a fashion? are my bosses
       willing to do so? "  People like to think in terms of the first 
       question, not the last two.
     - yes, the IRR is good (and yes, their PGP implementation works);
       giving third parties the ability to verify your organization's
       "routing intent" cannot be construed as bad -- the data is
   publicly
       visible.  there's nothing to hide.
     - yes, filtering doesn't mean not pushing IRR (or other forms of 
       distributed data) on folks. IRR (or ...) doesn't mean not trying
       to more closely tie authentication/verification vs realtime;
   present
       tools are config-only, which aren't dynamic enough for the real
   net.
   
   
   joe
   
   -30-
   
   
   
   


  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]