 
nanog mailing list archives
Re: Suspecious anycast prefixes
From: David Miller <dmiller () tiggee com>
Date: Thu, 05 May 2011 09:43:52 -0400
On 5/5/2011 8:59 AM, Danny McPherson wrote:
On May 3, 2011, at 6:17 AM, Bill Woodcock wrote:-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On May 2, 2011, at 12:35 PM, Joe Abley wrote:It's perhaps worth noting that there is work in the IETF to recommend that every prefix originated as part of an anycast cloud uses a unique origin AS (see<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-grow-unique-origin-as-00>). I'm not personally convinced of the arguments in the draft, but mentioning it in this thread seems reasonable.I'm also not convinced of the arguments in the draft, since it argues that it would be a best-practice'A', not 'the', for the reasons conveyed in the draft (e.g., control plane discriminator, RPKI foundations, etc..). If you don't like it, don't do it, it's certainly easier to not do it.for me to originate my address space from more than 8,000 different ASNs,8000 is a very large number.when I currently do just fine advertising it from three."You" as a service operator do just fine, and it's surely much simpler from a configuration and provisioning standpoint. But what about those folks that consume the service, and have no indication of which node they may be utilizing from an Internet control plane perspective, or all the associated derivatives?
In a properly functioning system - folks that consume the service don't need to know which node they are utilizing.
Providing the capability for well behaved customers to select/prefer a particular node over another would also allow evildoers to select/prefer a particular node over others - thereby increasing the attack surface of this node, yes?
Not a fan.
I'd much rather there not exist a document that clueless people can point at and claim is a "best common practice" when it's neither best nor common.'clueless people' wouldn't care which node they utilize, where it resides, or what other attributes might exist and be associated with it. Providing a discriminator in the control plane for the consumer of critical network services might well be of utility to some. -danny
Current thread:
- Re: Suspecious anycast prefixes, (continued)
- Re: Suspecious anycast prefixes John Kristoff (May 05)
- Re: Suspecious anycast prefixes bmanning (May 05)
- Re: Suspecious anycast prefixes Yaoqing(Joey) Liu (May 05)
- Re: Suspecious anycast prefixes bmanning (May 05)
- Re: Suspecious anycast prefixes Yaoqing(Joey) Liu (May 09)
- Re: Suspecious anycast prefixes Randy Bush (May 10)
 
 
 
- Re: Suspecious anycast prefixes bmanning (May 05)
- Re: Suspecious anycast prefixes David Miller (May 03)
- Re: Suspecious anycast prefixes Danny McPherson (May 05)
- Re: Suspecious anycast prefixes David Miller (May 05)
- Re: Suspecious anycast prefixes Danny McPherson (May 05)
- Re: Suspecious anycast prefixes David Miller (May 05)
- Re: Suspecious anycast prefixes Danny McPherson (May 05)
- Re: Suspecious anycast prefixes bmanning (May 05)


