Re: Third party routes

[Enke Chen <enke () mci net>]

> Date:    Mon, 30 Sep 1996 8:23:27 -0500 (CDT)
> From:    Sean Donelan <SEAN () SDG DRA COM>
> To:      nanog () merit edu

> > There are two ways to have packets go where no BGP routes are announced --
> > by adding bogus static or whatever routes or by pointing default.  Both
> > are malicious.  Note that accepting third party routes is also something
> > not generally welcomed.  If you're not given routes you're _not_ expected
> > to send your packets.  Consider that a "no trespassing" notice.
>
> MCI has found an intereesting variant on this.  Whenever MCI has
> backbone problems in Chicago, DRA suddenly sees all sorts of inbound
> traffic from MCI at mae-east and mae-west.  DRA usually ends up sending
> the outbound traffic back through CIX since MCI won't announce their
> routes to DRA at mae-east and mae-west.

Let us look at the facts: 

(1) DRAnet has a customer connection to MCI. 
(2) Currently MCI peers with AS4136 at Mae-East and hears routes of 
    DRAnet with next_hop pointing to maeeastplus-f0-0.dra.net.     

As a result, if the customer connection is lost, MCI would send 
traffic to DRAnet at Mae-East. This is normal routing bahavior. 

It seems to me that your question may be more related to why 
DRAnet routes are announced by AS4136 to MCI as a third-party
routes (next-hop). If there is any violation of peering policy
here,  it does not look like that MCI is at fault.             

> > Backbones are _private_ property.  As such the operators are in their
> > right to demand that others leave their equipment alone.
>
> True, but who has deeper pockets when mistakes happen.  If you are a
> multi-billion dollar provider, and one of your engineers has a late
> night routing 'oops', having an agreement already in place with other
> providers can mitigate some of risk.   Do I get to sue MCI for the
> traffic they send DRA at mae-east and mae-west without an agreement?

Would you have better luck to sue the one that passes your routes 
without authorization? 

> In the mean time, consider all those routers at the exchange points
> you don't peer with as potential legal lottery winners waiting for
> the first wayward packet to violate your "no trespassing" notice.
> -- 
> Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO
>   Affiliation given for identification not representation

-- Enke

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -