RE: [nznog] TC & T Possible Peering changes
On Behalf Of Russell Fulton Sent: Friday, 28 May 2004 1:56 p.m. To: nznog Subject: Re: [nznog] TC & T Possible Peering changes
On Fri, 2004-05-28 at 13:46, Don Gould wrote:
[...]
* Why don't the IX have clear policies on this issue?
Perhaps a better question is "When are the IXs going to establish clear policies on this issue?"
Russell.
Perhaps they already have a clear (no pun intended) policy - they're not responsible for what routes you advertise. - Donald Neal All opinions mine only. Donald Neal | Alphabet - ancient Technical Specialist | Greek lottery. Operations Engineering | [Martin Neal] Integration & Services Division +----------------------- Alcatel NZ Ltd - Telecom's network operations manager ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "This communication, including any attachments, is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not read it - please contact me immediately, destroy it, and do not copy or use any part of this communication or disclose anything about it. Thank you. Please note that this communication does not designate an information system for the purposes of the Electronic Transactions Act 2002." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Fri, May 28, 2004 at 03:13:09PM +1200, Donald Neal said:
On Fri, 2004-05-28 at 13:46, Don Gould wrote:
Perhaps a better question is "When are the IXs going to establish clear policies on this issue?"
Russell.
Perhaps they already have a clear (no pun intended) policy - they're not responsible for what routes you advertise.
As I've explained to anybody who's asked over the last 5+ years, you should only announce routes for which you're happy to carry that traffic free to it's destination. Were somebody to complain that another exchange participant were filching traffic off them, then I'd definitely investigate, and crack heads accordingly. The L2-switched-ethernet nature of the exchanges means that we've no obvious way of spotting abuse happening (a design goal that I doubt many exchange participants would want to change) - we're pretty reliant on people grizzling. The T's and C's could probably stand a revisit, but since I've never received such a complaint, it hasn't seemed like it's worthwhile codifying - this is a community, and I don't want to get prescriptive on what people can and can't do. I'd suggest that in the case of Telecom, exchange participants were just following the routes Telecom advertised - I don't think that anyone, Telecom included, is suggesting that folks were somehow bending the Telecom WIX connection to coerce free transit out of it. Cheers si
Donald Neal wrote:
* Why don't the IX have clear policies on this issue?
Perhaps a better question is "When are the IXs going to establish clear policies on this issue?"
Russell.
Perhaps they already have a clear (no pun intended) policy - they're not responsible for what routes you advertise.
It's not quite as anarchaic as that. We have very definite filters in place at both exchanges that only allow each BGP peer to announce their own prefixes. The APE and WIX websites allow anyone to examine what those filters are and what each participant is currently advertising. See http://www.ape.net.nz and http://www.wix.net.nz The policy that's described in the RPSL database is exactly what gets injected into the route server configurations - the process is automatic and there are no hidden exceptions.
participants (3)
-
Andy Linton -
Donald Neal -
Simon Blake