Home page logo
/

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: So -- what did happen to Panix?
From: Josh Karlin <karlinjf () cs unm edu>
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 09:08:07 -0700


Here is what we propose in PGBGP.  If you have a more specific route
and its AS Path does not contain any of the less specific route's
origins, then ignore it for a day and keep routing to the less
specific origin.  If it's legitimate the less specific origin should
forward the data on for the day.

We see about 30 of these suspicious routes per day.

I imagine some of you will not like this sceheme.  Please let me know why.

Josh



On 2/8/06, Jeffrey Haas <jhaas () nexthop com> wrote:

On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 04:37:31AM +0000, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
I had thought Josh's paper (or maybe not josh, whomever it was) said
something along the lines of:
1) if more than one announcement prefer 'longer term', 'older', 'more
usual' route
2) if only one route take it and run!

FWIW, this sort of mechanism was discussed among the IETF RPSEC WG
task group that is working on BGP security requirements.

On the presumption that some database of stable routes and paths
is present, you could bias your preference in your routes for
more stable routes and paths.

You would also need to decide what to do about more specific routes
covered by stable routes.  Do you ignore them?  This is a harder
question.

--
Jeff Haas
NextHop Technologies





  By Date           By Thread  

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