North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: Test Route
- From: bmanning
- Date: Mon Jan 30 18:40:54 1995
- Posted-date: Mon, 30 Jan 1995 15:36:48 -0800 (PST)
> Let me play Devil's Advocate here for a moment...
What no horns? No cloven hooves? No pointy tail?
> Why do you need a -policy-?
Easy, My policy is to not propogate any customer routes unless they
are properly registered in the routing registry. But how do I check
that I have a "working" BGP peer up unless I can actually exchange a
route? Here the testroute comes in real handy.
> Why do you need anything other than what 1597 already says?
See above. And besides, 192.0.2.0 is not part of RFC 1597.
> 1597 was VERY careful to be general and leave implementation of policy
> up to the users. The RA, NAPs, IXs, and others do not need to concern
> themselves with how or when these suggestions are implemented.
> The thing to understand is that the 1597 network addresses are not unique
> throughout the entire Internet. There use and administration is done on a
> local basis, but it behoves us to not get parochial about the term local.
> Actually, there's a really interesting point here that's about to give
> you a big whopping ulcer. I hate to do this to you but...
Not a problem
> You, as RA, need to support your customer's routing policies.
Darn! I was in it for the praise and adoration
> If, for instance, someone at Sprint and someone at MCI get together and
> decide jointly that they want to share network 10 "privately" for their
> BGP loopbacks or their porno FTP servers, they could form the Sprint/MCI
> net-10 consortium and you'd need to carry an advertisement for net 10 in
> your RA database so the two sites could exchange routes.
> Here's where the fun comes in... now say Alternet and PSI get together and
> want to share network 10 "privately" for their BGP loopbacks or their
> porno FTP sites and form the Alternet/PSI net-10 consortium...
You forgot the guys who register their net10 with a policy of "don't route
per RFC 1597.
I don't think this is a problem in the RADB. We can take this offline
to reduce my public exposure.
> The long and the short of it is that as RA, not only do you need to not
> block 1597 advertisements in your database, you need to correctly implement
> virtual private networking for 1597 advertisements.
> Remember Bill, that the RA needs to not get bogged down by parochial
> definitions of "local."
Only when it pertains directly to the RA maintained route servers.
> I bet now you're wishing you hadn't brought this up and got me thinking...
> Sorry...I'll buy you a drink in Danvers to make it up to you.
Nope, this is really good.
See you in Danvers... :)