Deaggregating for emergency purposes

Wed Aug 7 14:24:31 UTC 2002

Truth be told, if someone was advertising your space illegitimately, any networks that 
use the IRR's to filter would not be accepting the rogue announcement in the first place, 
at least in theory. Thus, the emergency registration of more-specific route object should 
not be necessary, right?

-C

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.
> 
> --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
> 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20020807/5bf2f74c/attachment.sig>