nanog mailing list archives
Re: RIPE "Golden Networks" Document ID - 229/210/178
From: Rodney Joffe <rjoffe () centergate com>
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 15:29:13 -0700
Hi Randy, On Sep 2, 2004, at 2:58 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
If you don't implement ripe-229, why not?because the golden address space stuff is stupid
OK. I'll bite...Given Network A, which has "golden network" content behind it as described by the RIPE paper (root and tld data), if the network has some combination of events that result in all of their announcements to you being dampened by you, your users can't get "there". For grin's, let's say we're talking about .foo, one of the larger gtld's.
You are absolutely right in suggesting that .foo has to get its act together. You may even tell your users that. But you'll be telling every single one of them, because every single one of them is going to attempt to resolve .foo domain names during the hour you have them dampened. And your cost in dealing with those support calls will probably outweigh the benefits of dampening .foo.
I am polling networks so that I can get an idea of who handles their network this way, and who doesn't. I don't know if it is stupid or not, because I don't know enough about the subject yet. What I do know is that dampening these special networks with long prefixes already causes real-world problems. In many cases, the pain is felt by networks who may have a policy of not dampening, but are downstream of a major network that *does* dampen aggressively. Unless they're looking at the routing announcement and withdrawal data and analyzing it, they may never realize why their support infrastructure was overwhelmed. And Jared has a good point - modern BFR's *can* handle lots of flaps without breaking a sweat so maybe dampening aggressively, or even at all, may be an artifact whose time has gone.
Notwithstanding the normal response of "If what is on that network is broken, let them fix it" which is tantamount to cutting off your nose to spite your face, saying it is stupid is more of a generalization and opinion, but doesn't really give reasons as to why it is stupid, so it really has no real value. What are the reasons you think (or know) it is *stupid*? And what is the solution technically, not to include "let them fix it - I'm in the right, so I'm not going to do anything".
Thanks /rlj
Current thread:
- Re: RIPE "Golden Networks" Document ID - 229/210/178, (continued)
- Re: RIPE "Golden Networks" Document ID - 229/210/178 Jared Mauch (Sep 02)
- Re: RIPE "Golden Networks" Document ID - 229/210/178 Randy Bush (Sep 02)
- Re: RIPE "Golden Networks" Document ID - 229/210/178 Iljitsch van Beijnum (Sep 02)
- Re: RIPE "Golden Networks" Document ID - 229/210/178 John Bender (Sep 02)
- Re: RIPE "Golden Networks" Document ID - 229/210/178 Alex Bligh (Sep 04)
- Re: RIPE "Golden Networks" Document ID - 229/210/178 Bill Woodcock (Sep 04)
- Re: RIPE "Golden Networks" Document ID - 229/210/178 Iljitsch van Beijnum (Sep 02)
- Re: RIPE "Golden Networks" Document ID - 229/210/178 Bill Woodcock (Sep 04)
- Re: RIPE "Golden Networks" Document ID - 229/210/178 Petri Helenius (Sep 04)
- Re: RIPE "Golden Networks" Document ID - 229/210/178 David Barak (Sep 04)
- Re: RIPE "Golden Networks" Document ID - 229/210/178 Robert E . Seastrom (Sep 04)
- Re: RIPE "Golden Networks" Document ID - 229/210/178 Randy Bush (Sep 02)
- Re: RIPE "Golden Networks" Document ID - 229/210/178 Stephen J. Wilcox (Sep 03)
- Re: RIPE "Golden Networks" Document ID - 229/210/178 Rodney Joffe (Sep 03)
- Re: RIPE "Golden Networks" Document ID - 229/210/178 Stephen J. Wilcox (Sep 04)