nanog mailing list archives
Re: genuity - any good?
From: Sean Donelan <sean () donelan com>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 20:00:37 -0400 (EDT)
On Fri, 12 Apr 2002, Roy wrote:
Registering is not "bad", its just not beneficial. Given that the routes I want to announce are within my assigned range, why is it a good thing to register them? If the transit provider always add entries when I ask for them, it seems to be very little benefit..
The simple reasons is some people (or their buggy router) deaggregated multiple Class B's or A's and broke some upstream providers. You can blame whomever you want, but registration gives the user a chance to notice a typo resulted in 65,535 routes before actually announcing all those routes. No, it doesn't stop a malcious router engineering. But it is a nice "defense in depth" or "speed bumb" for dumb mistake(tm) prevention.
Current thread:
- Re: genuity - any good?, (continued)
- Re: genuity - any good? Sean Donelan (Apr 11)
- Re: genuity - any good? Mark Kent (Apr 11)
- Re: genuity - any good? Hank Nussbacher (Apr 11)
- Re: genuity - any good? Neil J. McRae (Apr 12)
- Re: genuity - any good? Hank Nussbacher (Apr 11)
- Re: genuity - any good? Roy (Apr 12)
- Re: genuity - any good? Neil J. McRae (Apr 12)
- Re: genuity - any good? Simon Lyall (Apr 12)
- Re: genuity - any good? Stephen Griffin (Apr 12)
- Re: genuity - any good? Roy (Apr 12)
- Re: genuity - any good? Aditya (Apr 12)
- Re: genuity - any good? Sean Donelan (Apr 12)
- Re: genuity - any good? David Schwartz (Apr 12)
- Re: genuity - any good? Richard A Steenbergen (Apr 13)
- Re: genuity - any good? Mark Kent (Apr 12)
- Route Filtering (Was: Re: genuity - any good?) Leo Bicknell (Apr 12)
- RE: genuity - any good? David Luyer (Apr 12)
- limiting # of prefixes from a BGP peer (Was: Re: genuity - any good?) Rafi Sadowsky (Apr 13)
- Re: limiting # of prefixes from a BGP peer (Was: Re: genuity - any good?) German Martinez (Apr 13)
- Re: genuity - any good? Stephen Griffin (Apr 15)