Deaggregating for emergency purposes
Omachonu Ogali
nanog at missnglnk.com
Tue Aug 6 18:41:55 UTC 2002
On Tue, Aug 06, 2002 at 02:07:13PM -0400, Phil Rosenthal wrote:
>
> IRR pollution helps because all of *MY* uplinks filter, even if theirs
> don't.
> --Phil
*sigh*
Here is one example of why IRR polution will not work:
--snip--
route: 198.41.0.0/24
descr: PNAP-WDC
netsol-2
origin: AS19836
mnt-by: INAP-MAINT-RADB
changed: shawnb at internap.com 20010313
source: RADB
route: 198.41.0.0/24
descr: Inic-route
origin: AS6245
mnt-by: INIC-MAINT-MCI
changed: mkaras at internic.net 19990406
source: CW
route: 198.41.0.0/24
descr: HarvardNet Transit Client route object
origin: AS6082
mnt-by: HARVARDNET
changed: hluu at harvardnet.com 20010129
source: CW
route: 198.41.0.0/24
descr: PNAP-WDC
descr: netsol-2
origin: AS19836
mnt-by: INAP-MAINT-MCI
changed: shawnb at internap.com 20010313
source: CW
route: 198.41.0.0/24
descr: Proxy-registered route object for Sprint :-)
origin: AS11840
remarks: auto-generated route object
remarks: this next line gives the robot something to recognize
remarks: The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog.
remarks:
remarks: This route object is for a Sprint customer route
remarks: which is being exported under this origin AS.
remarks:
remarks: This route object was created because no existing
remarks: route object with the same origin was found, and
remarks: we really just wanted to help out those poor Sprint
remarks: folks who have an aversion to registering routes.
remarks:
remarks: We hope they have a sense of humor.
remarks:
remarks: Please contact WeLoveThoseCrazySprintFolks at Level3.net
remarks: if you have any questions regarding this object.
mnt-by: SPRINT-MNT
changed: WeLoveThoseCrazySprintFolks at Level3.net 20020319
source: LEVEL3
--snip--
Two, you're betting on everyone setting a high value for their
local-preference with Verio and Peer1, you don't know who prefers
who.
But hey, I give up, this conversation is most likely going to
continue in the form of a circle.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-nanog at merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog at merit.edu] On Behalf Of
> nanog at missnglnk.com
> Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2002 1:57 PM
> To: nanog at merit.edu
> Subject: Re: Deaggregating for emergency purposes
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 06, 2002 at 01:29:58PM -0400, Phil Rosenthal wrote:
> >
> > Most ISPs that build off of the IRR's do it nightly. I am talking
> > about 10 /24's out of /19, and I'm not announcing any of the /24's --
> > and wont unless there is an emergency, and only then would it be
> > temporary.
>
> Yes, and during that time, you could have:
> a) Gone to CompUSA and bought some translation software.
> b) Installed Windows and Office XP.
> c) E-mailed some friends in fluid Spanish/German/Italian.
> d) Bought a $10 international calling card.
> e) Gone back to CompUSA and bought some text to speech software.
> f) Put it all together in an e-mail to the ISP's upstreams,
> and blasted the NOC's phone with a translated message of
> "Stop announcing 192.168.0.0/16, it is my space".
>
> And once again, if the ISPs in question receiving the routes actually
> filtered based on IRR data, the route would not have made it in the
> first place, correct? So how is IRR pollution going to help this if
> there's no IRR filtering policy to begin with?
>
> > --Phil
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-nanog at merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog at merit.edu] On Behalf
> > Of Omachonu Ogali
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2002 4:00 AM
> > To: nanog at merit.edu
> > Subject: Re: Deaggregating for emergency purposes
> >
> >
> >
> > What about announcing and registering with your IRR, more-specific
> > routes for the period that the problem ONLY exists, instead of being
> > lazy?
> >
> > If all else fails, break out Outlook and your favorite translator,
> > because last time I checked, speaking English was not a requirement to
>
> > run a network. Even if most of you do, this is not a "Majority Rules"
> > situation.
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 10:47:33PM -0700, john at chagresventures.com
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > get on the bandwaggon that filtering is a good thing ?? :)
> > >
> > > at some point some transit is going to listen and drop the
> > > announcement.
> > >
> > > Lets take an example. Deep Dark middle of asia, someone starts
> > > announcing a /24 of yours. Their upstream takes the packet, and so
> > > forth. At some point they will touch a NSP or ISP (international
> > > service provider) and you can get things dropped their.
> >
> > Yes. End of story. Go directly to the finish diamond at the end of
> > your flowchart. If the next step in your flowchart is "pollute IRRs
> > with 3592375238957235893275839572 /32s", please return your maintainer
>
> > object.
> >
> > > Your pushing out a /24 will help slurp some of the traffic towards
> > > you, but not all.
> > >
> > > Personally I have deagged some prefixes to cause a DOS/DDOS towards
> > > a particular address to route down a slow connection I had.
> > > Sacrifice one link, to keep customers running on the others. But
> > > thats
> > different.
> >
> > Yes, but you removed it later on, correct?
> >
> > > Its about networking, the people kind, at this point.
> > >
> > > cheers
> > >
> > > john brown
> > > chagres technologies, inc
> > >
> > > On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 09:00:55PM -0400, Phil Rosenthal wrote:
> > > >
> > > > But the question is, what do you do if it's coming from somewhere
> > > > with a difficult to contact NOC, and their upstream is difficult
> to
> > > > contact as well?
> > > >
> > > > --Phil
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: John M. Brown [mailto:jmbrown at ihighway.net]
> > > > Sent: Monday, August 05, 2002 8:12 PM
> > > > To: Phil Rosenthal
> > > > Cc: nanog at merit.edu
> > > > Subject: Re: Deaggregating for emergency purposes
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hmm, this would be a "Bad Idea" (TM) (C) 2002, DMCA Protected
> > > >
> > > > Having had this happen to me several different times, I'd have to
> > > > recommend, calling the NOC of the advertising party. as the pref'd
> > way
> > > > of handling it.
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 06:41:22PM -0400, Phil Rosenthal wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I am currently announcing only my aggregate routes, but I have
> > > > > lately
> > > > > thought about the possibility of someone mistakenly, or
> > maliciously,
> > > > > announcing more specifics from my space. The best solution for
> > > > > an
> > > > > emergency response to that (that I can think of), is registering
> > all
> > > > > of the /24's that make up my network, so if someone should
> > announce a
> > > > > more-specific, I can always announce the most specific that
> > > > > would
> > be
> > > > > accepted (assuming they don't announce the /24's too, it should
> > > > > be
> > a
> > > > > problem avoided)
> > > > >
> > > > > Does anyone else have any other ideas on ways to quickly deal
> > > > > with someone else announcing your more specifics, since
> > > > > contacting
> > their
> > > > > NOC is likely going to take a long time...
> > > > >
> > > > > --Phil
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
> > --
> > Omachonu Ogali
> > missnglnk at informationwave.net
> > http://www.informationwave.net
> >
>
> --
> Omachonu Ogali
> missnglnk at informationwave.net
> http://www.informationwave.net
>
--
Omachonu Ogali
missnglnk at informationwave.net
http://www.informationwave.net
More information about the NANOG
mailing list