Re: [apops] Fwd: Korea Telecom leaking >1000 prefixes to Internet

  • To: Philip Smith <pfs at cisco dot com>
  • Subject: Re: [apops] Fwd: Korea Telecom leaking >1000 prefixes to Internet
  • From: Geoff Huston <gih at telstra dot net>
  • Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 05:39:12 +1100
  • Cc: Joe Abley <jabley at automagic dot org>, apops at lists dot apnic dot net
  • In-reply-to: <>
  • References: <><><><><><>
  • Sender:
    • At 12/13/00 04:12 AM +1000, Philip Smith wrote:
      >At 08:12 12/12/00 -0500, Joe Abley wrote:
      >>And the only reason it's an operational matter for _anybody_ is that
      >>those who peer and provide transit to Korea Telecom don't filter them
      >Sean Doran made an interesting suggestion at the IEPG on Sunday. Charge providers for the prefixes they announce. So if anyone thinks that 99500 is too much for their router to take, send a bill to the people who are announcing more than they ought to (i.e. subprefixes of their aggregates).  They may ignore it, or they may send a cheque... Who knows... Anyone want to test the theory?
      The problem is identifying the difference between route push and route pull.
      You are implicitly assuming this unidirectional route advertisement heads 'upstream'
      in making this statement.
      As a cursory examination of AS relations in AS paths reveals, what is upstream
      and what is downstream is largely a matter of opinion.
      It is on this particular rock that 'charging for advertisement of route prefixes'
      has foundered as a concept for the past 5 years.
      >>It's a fact of life that people will leak crap into the network every
      >>once and a while. Maybe Korea Telecom are leaking a lot of crap.
      >>Responsible peers and providers won't see it though, because they'll
      >>filter it as a matter of routine.
      >Yup, and those who don't know to do this may find out about some of the options... Like filtering, or charging money, or.... ;-)
      >>This sounds like an interesting supposition to test. It would be nice
      >>if periodic measurements could be taken across the regions to give a
      >>representative sample distribution: I presume you are comparing single
      >>point measurements in the US and AP?
      And who are the Routing Police and who gave them a charter and who gave them the
      authority to start intruding in the normally commercial in confidence relationships
      between a provider and a customer? The conversation strikes me as having identified
      a reasonable issue, but them wandered off into a vary unrealistic set of potential
      solutions. I _know_ that apnic would be __HORRIFIED__ to be portrayed as the
      Routing Police. I also know that the difference between collective action by a number
      of commercial entities and cartel-like behavior is often difficult to distinguish,
      and many providers would abhor the concept of behaving in a collusive way
      that discriminates or disadvantages a competitor or customer. So with all that in
      mind the solutions to issues such as these are not always easy to identify.
      The real issue here is far more complex and multi-dimensioned than is characterized
      in the messages I've seen to date, and before the routing jihad moves into the mode
      of eliminating the infidel /30 route prefix advertiser, we should all understand
      the dimension of the environment we live in, and its more than purely technology
      I would humbly suggest.
            Geoff Huston
      *             APOPS: Asia Pacific Operations Forum              *
      * To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to apops-request at apnic dot net *