nanog mailing list archives
Re: BGP Experiment
From: hank () interall co il
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2019 09:40:08 +0200
On 23/01/2019 19:40, Job Snijders wrote: I agree with Job. Continue the experiment and warn us in advance. -Hank
Dear Ben, all, I'm not sure this experiment should be canceled. On the public Internet we MUST assume BGP speakers are compliant with the BGP-4 protocol. Broken BGP-4 speakers are what they are: broken. They must be fixed, or the operator must accept the consequences. "Get a sandbox like every other researcher" is not a fair statement, one can also posit "Get a compliant BGP-4 implementation like every other network operator". When bad guys explicitly seek to target these Asian and Australian operators you reference (who apparently have not upgraded to the vendor recommended release), using *valid* BGP updates, will a politely emailed request help resolve the situation? Of course not! Stopping the experiment is only treating symptoms, the root cause must be addressed: broken software. Kind regards, Job
Current thread:
- Re: BGP Experiment, (continued)
- Re: BGP Experiment Randy Bush (Jan 26)
- Re: BGP Experiment Eric Kuhnke (Jan 26)
- Re: BGP Experiment Nick Hilliard (Jan 26)
- Re: BGP Experiment Randy Bush (Jan 26)
- Re: BGP Experiment William Allen Simpson (Jan 27)
- [2019/01/27] Re: BGP Experiment Hansen, Christoffer (Jan 27)
- Re: BGP Experiment Randy Bush (Jan 27)
- Re: BGP Experiment Nick Hilliard (Jan 27)
- Re: BGP Experiment Brian Kantor (Jan 28)