nanog mailing list archives

Re: Peering + Transit Circuits


From: Faisal Imtiaz <faisal () snappytelecom net>
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 04:29:47 +0000 (GMT)

Thank you to everyone who has offered different explanations.. 

Yes, all it take is one party pooper to spoil a good party...

So now the question is (public or private) what is the best practices to protect the network ?

:)


Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Osmon" <josmon () rigozsaurus com>
To: "nanog list" <nanog () nanog org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2015 8:30:45 PM
Subject: Re: Peering + Transit Circuits

On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 11:27:53PM +0000, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:
Thanks for the explanation,
I am still trying to figure out the realistic business case where
doing something like this would make sense to any party.
(unless purely malicious or in error).

I'm sure others will reply as well, but in case it helps someone
googling in years to come...


Let's look at ParasiteNet, a content heavy network with three BGP
peerings:
 - Transit provider A via 100Mbps
 - Transit provider B via 100Mbps
 - Peer P via 1GBps (who also buys from provider B at 10G)

If ParasiteNet needed to push more than 100Mbps to provider B, they
might be tempted to route the traffic to peer P, even though peer P
didn't advertise those routes.

ParasiteNet gets a free ride if peer P doesn't notice what is going on
(until they need more than 100Mbps inbound).


I've been told of an occurance of this when a private network started
peering with an edu network.  Once the link was up, an absurd amount of
traffic went across the link -- all destined for "the Internet" rather
than the edu network.

When the edu network shutdown the link, they were threatened with
lawsuits...


Current thread: