Home page logo
/

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: Lazy Engineers and Viable Excuses
From: "Stephen J. Wilcox" <steve () telecomplete co uk>
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 16:13:01 +0100 (BST)



On Tue, 26 Aug 2003, Leo Bicknell wrote:

In a message written on Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 10:43:00AM -0400, Jared Mauch wrote:
    Yes I could, if you and your customers had all the routes
they sourced packest from registered.  This has nothing to do
with routing 101, this has to do with filtering customers and
having anti-spoofing filters as well as route objects for any
prefix you will source packets from.  


         ___T1 to Verio, With BGP____Verio______
        /                                       \
Customer                                         UUnet
        \                                       /
         ---T1 to Sprint, No BGP-----Sprint-----

Now, the customer, over their two T1 transit circuits does the
following:

as-path access-list 1 deny .*

neighbor verio filter-list 1 in

ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 sprint

Should the customer have to register a route with Sprint to make
this work?  How does UUNet, who only received a route from Verio,
know incoming packets from Sprint aren't spoofed?  Note also, even
if these cases are in the IRR, UUNet's filter for Sprint will be
larger than the number of routes currently received, since there is
no route for this prefix that needs to be in the filter.

[Note, I don't suggest this configuration is common or useful on
its own, but rather it's a simple enough case it can be used for
discussion in e-mail.]

Hmm this isnt a real world scenario tho.. if you multihome there should be BGP 
on both paths..

In the example above Sprint arent accepting or sourcing a route so there is no
issue on routes being passed into Sprint or UUNET and we're talking here about
spoofing of routes not packets

Steve


  By Date           By Thread  

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