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

How might this affect the frequency of AS8584-type problems?
Bill Goldstein
Senior Internet Specialist
wgoldstein () att com

   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
      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 [])
   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
   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
      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 []) 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
   > 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...
     - yes, filters are Good.  customers, especially if new to
       things, should have both as-path and prefix filters placed
       them.  the questions to ask oneself regarding peers is "how
       are they, really?  and do their procedures allow only these
       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
       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;
       tools are config-only, which aren't dynamic enough for the real

  By Date           By Thread  

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