Re: preventing future situations like panix

[Bill Woodcock <woody () pch net>]

      On Mon, 23 Jan 2006, Josh Karlin wrote:
    > The idea is simply to consider 'suspicious' looking routes as a last
    > resort in the decision process (~1 day).  Thus if no alternative route
    > for a prefix exists, the suspicious route is used regardless, no harm
    > done. 

It seems like most of the routers which would need to make this decision 
wouldn't have adequate information upon which to do so...  That is, 
upstream routers would already have hidden one route or the other (except 
with more-specifics).  So this would mostly need to be implemented from 
the core outwards, rather than by individual smaller operators first.  And 
once the core has done it, it's significantly less important whether the 
fringes do it or not.  When I say "core" here, I don't mean just the "tier 
1" operators, I mean everybody with a significant degree of peering.  Hm.  
Well, maybe that's not such a big problem after all.

                                -Bill