Atrivo/Intercage: Now Only 1 Upstream
ge at linuxbox.org
Wed Sep 17 12:40:02 CDT 2008
On Wed, 17 Sep 2008, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 1:01 PM, Gadi Evron <ge at linuxbox.org> wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Sep 2008, Skywing wrote:
>>> Putting things in the automated bogon feeds (e.g. Team Cymru) that are not
>>> strictly bogons (unallocated addresses) is likely to very quickly erode
>>> trust in those services, if that is what you are suggesting.
>> We all want a "really really bad stuff" BGP feed for anyone who wants it,
>> but the Internet is not ready for that.
> hrm, so actually there's a lot of supporting infrastructure that is
> necessary (or could be necessary) to implement something of that sort
> in any decent sized network. Provided you wanted to sinkhole the
> trafffic off somewhere to 'do the right thing' not just null0 the
> traffic, of course.
> There's the additional issue of allowing a third party to
> manage/traffic-engineer inside your network which might upset some
> operations folks. If you can build a list on your own in a reasonable
> fashion with supporting information and high confidence level that's
> one story, if this list comes from "someone else" whom you don't even
> have a billing-relationship with... it's hard to sell that when
> something bad happens.
> Certainly not everyone feels this way (see 'popularity' of the
> existing RBL/xbl lists) but in a larger network, or one that makes
> money ...
> How about providing some open-source intelligence in a centralized and
> machine-parsable fashion (perhaps with community input of intel even)
> which would allow better decsions to be made?
Chris, that does not solve the one issue you did not mention: liability.
More information about the NANOG