nanog mailing list archives
Re: Where are static bogon filters appropriate? was: 96.2.0.0/16 Bogons
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike () swm pp se>
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 18:02:06 +0100 (CET)
On Sun, 4 Mar 2007, Sean Donelan wrote:
When customers misconfigure their router, e.g. wrong BGP neighbor or ASN, wrong interface IP address, exceed max prefix limit, etc; don't they lose Internet connectivity until they fix it?A properly configure router should never forward even a single bad packet. If it does, isn't it likely to have configuration problems so why continue to keep misconfigured routers connected?Customers are unlikely to fix problems which don't cause them to lose service.
Even though the BOFH in me agrees with you, I also know that every cent on my paycheck comes from the customers, so I prefer not to treat them like crap. If I can protect the internet from my customers by doing uRPF or source IP based filtering, I achieve the same thing as you but with less customer impact.
Also, all the examples you give implies a BGP transit customer. I am imagining all kinds of customers, from colo customers where I am their default gateway, to residential customers where it's the same way. Disabling their port and punting them to customer support is NOT a cost efficient way of dealing with the problems, at least not in the market I am in.
-- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike () swm pp se
Current thread:
- Re: Where are static bogon filters appropriate? was: 96.2.0.0/16 Bogons, (continued)
- Re: Where are static bogon filters appropriate? was: 96.2.0.0/16 Bogons Roland Dobbins (Mar 02)
- Re: Where are static bogon filters appropriate? was: 96.2.0.0/16 Bogons Sean Donelan (Mar 02)
- RE: Where are static bogon filters appropriate? was: 96.2.0.0/16 Bogons Eric Ortega (Mar 02)
- Re: Where are static bogon filters appropriate? was: 96.2.0.0/16 Bogons Steven M. Bellovin (Mar 02)
- Re: Where are static bogon filters appropriate? was: 96.2.0.0/16 Bogons Daniel Senie (Mar 02)
- Re: Where are static bogon filters appropriate? was: 96.2.0.0/16 Bogons Sean Donelan (Mar 03)
- Re: Where are static bogon filters appropriate? was: 96.2.0.0/16 Bogons Peter Dambier (Mar 03)
- RE: Where are static bogon filters appropriate? was: 96.2.0.0/16 Bogons Barry Greene (bgreene) (Mar 04)
- Re: Where are static bogon filters appropriate? was: 96.2.0.0/16 Bogons Roland Dobbins (Mar 02)
- Re: Where are static bogon filters appropriate? was: 96.2.0.0/16 Bogons Mikael Abrahamsson (Mar 03)
- Re: Where are static bogon filters appropriate? was: 96.2.0.0/16 Bogons Sean Donelan (Mar 04)
- Re: Where are static bogon filters appropriate? was: 96.2.0.0/16 Bogons Mikael Abrahamsson (Mar 06)
- Re: Where are static bogon filters appropriate? was: 96.2.0.0/16 Bogons Sean Donelan (Mar 06)
- Re: Where are static bogon filters appropriate? was: 96.2.0.0/16 Bogons Mikael Abrahamsson (Mar 06)
- Re: Where are static bogon filters appropriate? was: 96.2.0.0/16 Bogons Valdis . Kletnieks (Mar 06)
- Re: Where are static bogon filters appropriate? was: 96.2.0.0/16 Bogons Mikael Abrahamsson (Mar 06)
- Re: Where are static bogon filters appropriate? was: 96.2.0.0/16 Bogons Mark Radabaugh (Mar 06)
- Re: Where are static bogon filters appropriate? was: 96.2.0.0/16 Bogons Sean Donelan (Mar 09)
- Re: Where are static bogon filters appropriate? was: 96.2.0.0/16 Bogons Roland Dobbins (Mar 02)
- 123.0.0.0/8 from AS7643 (was - Re: Where are static bogon filters appropriate? was: 96.2.0.0/16 Bogons) william(at)elan.net (Mar 02)
- Re: Where are static bogon filters appropriate? was: 96.2.0.0/16 Bogons Jason Frisvold (Mar 04)