Re: Where are static bogon filters appropriate? was: 96.2.0.0/16 Bogons

From: Mikael Abrahamsson (no email)
Date: Tue Mar 06 2007 - 12:02:06 EST

  • Next message: Sean Donelan: "Re: Where are static bogon filters appropriate? was: 96.2.0.0/16 Bogons"

    On Sun, 4 Mar 2007, Sean Donelan wrote:

    > When customers misconfigure their router, e.g. wrong BGP neighbor or
    > ASN, wrong interface IP address, exceed max prefix limit, etc; don't
    > they lose Internet connectivity until they fix it?
    >
    > A properly configure router should never forward even a single bad
    > packet. If it does, isn't it likely to have configuration problems so
    > why continue to keep misconfigured routers connected?
    >
    > Customers are unlikely to fix problems which don't cause them to lose
    > service.

    Even though the BOFH in me agrees with you, I also know that every cent on
    my paycheck comes from the customers, so I prefer not to treat them like
    crap. If I can protect the internet from my customers by doing uRPF or
    source IP based filtering, I achieve the same thing as you but with less
    customer impact.

    Also, all the examples you give implies a BGP transit customer. I am
    imagining all kinds of customers, from colo customers where I am their
    default gateway, to residential customers where it's the same way.
    Disabling their port and punting them to customer support is NOT a cost
    efficient way of dealing with the problems, at least not in the market I
    am in.

    -- 
    Mikael Abrahamsson    email: 
    

  • Next message: Sean Donelan: "Re: Where are static bogon filters appropriate? was: 96.2.0.0/16 Bogons"





    Hosted Email Solutions

    Invaluement Anti-Spam DNSBLs



    Powered By FreeBSD   Powered By FreeBSD