Merit Network
Can't find what you're looking for? Search the Mail Archives.
  About Merit   Services   Network   Resources & Support   Network Research   News   Events   Home

Discussion Communities: Merit Network Email List Archives

North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Has PSI been assigned network 1?

  • From: Larry J. Plato
  • Date: Sat Apr 22 12:05:39 1995

> 
> Filtering only serves to violate the premise of BGP4 and routing in general - 
> that the metrics and route weights will guide a packet to the most expeditious
> path.  When you remove some of those choices, you second-guess the physical 
> realities of the time.
> 

Filtering does not violate any premise in BGP4.  BGP4 was
designed to allow the assignment of administrative weights.
That is to say, POLICY.  And I happen to believe not accepting a
route for 204.68.252/24 from someone who is not authorized to
route the associated ASes is a good policy.  If someone
announced a route to NET99 that was not authorized then ANS
would ignore that route, and you would still have connectivity
through us.  Only the customers of the ISP who misconfigured his
equipment, and anyone uniformed enough to accept routes from
him, would lose out.

Yes, as Vadim points out, there is an administrative cost to
filing NACRs. 

Yes, you need bigger, faster routers with a LOT more memory. 

Yes, I see outages every day because someone did not file a NACR,
filed it incorrectly, or it was not processed on time.

But the resulting connectivity is, IMHO, more robust than, to
borrow a metaphor, having promiscuous sessions with all your
peers and praying you don't get the 'black hole',

Larry Plato
ANS Network Operations




Discussion Communities


About Merit | Services | Network | Resources & Support | Network Research
News | Events | Contact | Site Map | Merit Network Home


Merit Network, Inc.