[AusNOG] International link issue

[Scott Weeks]

Comments inline...

--------- terry at terrym.net wrote: ---------------
From: Terry Manderson <terry at terrym.net>

"forcing" things in the routing system is a concept that raises the hairs on many people's necks. Generally speaking when something is forced onto the business relationships that facilitate the BGP exchanges, it sounds an heck of a lot like regulation.
---------------------------------------------

Thanks for point this out and making me clarify.  I definitely did not 
mean force in the manner of governmental regulation.  (blech, got a 
little puke in the back of my throat just thinking about that... :-)  
I meant in the manner of how the /24 got 'forced' in IPv4 BGP.




-------------------------------------------
I would much rather see technology voluntarily adopted that makes sense from both a security PoV and an operational one. IE it's just so damn good. It may be that the RIRs are the locus for such an effort, both locally and internationally. Internationally that may not be an easy road. Locally it may be simpler.

My recommendation would be to think deeply about what it is you want to achieve, how you would effect that change of status quo, and consider how you get your management to pay for the (your) effort (*). Perhaps a "by doing this we don't end up as a bad guy in the newspapers for breaking the internet" might be one.. I'm sure there are others.

(*) Everything costs, regardless if you do it, the RIR does it, a CERT does it, or some other trustable organisation that you like.
----------------------------------------------

This is what I'm trying to say.  I know of many places that just don't 
care or understand "by doing this we don't end up as a bad guy in the
newspapers for breaking the internet".  They don't understand or care
if it's so damned good.  But, they're in charge of more BGP than I
care to think about.  I'm sure there're many more organizations in
that situation.



: think deeply about what it is you want to achieve

BGP table stability such that that limits or completely mitigates the 
damage of situations like this.


: how you would effect that change of status quo

Force it like they did the /24 in IPv4.


: consider how you get your management to pay for the (your) effort

Um, yeah...  ;-)

scott










On 24/02/2012, at 4:54 PM, Scott Weeks wrote:

> 
> 
> ------- David at Hughes.com.au wrote: --------
> From: David Hughes <David at Hughes.com.au>
> 
> This doesn't have to be a router-based, real-time solution.  And in my opinion it shouldn't be.  This is an OSS role and could easily be handled behind the scenes.  Using RPSL tools like rtconfig and regularly pushing out prefix lists that have changed would not be difficult to implement nor onerous on the equipment in the data path.
> 
> As Geoff said, getting a source you can trust is the tricky bit.  And I agree with Macca, the RIR's are an obvious place to start looking for a solution.
> --------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> One thing is for sure.  Somehow it needs to be forced, or it won't be done.
> There're many companies that won't see the work as counting toward the bottom 
> line (so, it's unnecessary work in their opinion) and there're those individuals 
> that just plain don't want to do the extra work.  If it's forced then it has to
> be done or your routes don't propagate.
> 
> scott
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----------------
> ----------------
> --------------
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog