TWC (AS11351) blocking all NTP?

Christopher Morrow morrowc.lists at gmail.com
Tue Feb 4 19:38:50 UTC 2014


On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 2:28 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 2:08 PM, Doug Barton <dougb at dougbarton.us> wrote:
>> On 02/04/2014 08:04 AM, William Herrin wrote:
>>> If just three of the transit-free networks rewrote their peering
>>> contracts such that there was a $10k per day penalty for sending
>>> packets with source addresses the peer should reasonably have known
>>> were forged, this problem would go away in a matter of weeks.
>>
>> Won't work because no one will sign that contract.
>
> Hi Doug,
>
> Verizon Business is willing to do settlement-free peering with you but

you forgot an IF there, right?

All of these 'get N tierM networks to peer and agree to penalties
amongst eachother in the case of Y happening' discussions sound a LOT
like longdistance settlement regimes. There's a nice fellow in
tcpm/iccrwg in the ietf that's happy to talk a lot about 'red packets'
and 'black packets' and congestion and cost shifting for this sort of
thing. which frankly sounds almost exactly like the conversation about
spoofed packets.

In a world where folk connect to a peering fabric and default-route
toward a peer, or never send routes to a peer yet prefer paths across
that peer... or hell, do this with their ISP network connections.  How
does one tell that 'ISPX sent me a packet that is spoofed' ? how does
that hold up in court? (which will happen eventually when the billing
dispute goes south... and will happen months after the event in
question.)

It's a laudable goal, to do some enforcement of bcp38-like functions,
but doing at SFP links is frankly impactical and bound to fail.
Instead, concentrate on the customer edge of the problem and solve
things there, eh?

-chris



More information about the NANOG mailing list