Last post on this topic for me. You seem to wish to argue against the lessons of history and the reality of running a network on the global Internet.
On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 09:27:36AM +0200, Daniel Suchy wrote: > On 06/02/2012 02:53 AM, Joe Provo wrote: > > Cost and performance were merely two reasons someone may wish to prevent > > remote parties from using origin to influence outbound traffic from my > > network. > As I mentioned already, it will influence that by another way. And this > costs *you* more money - you have to pay for router with larger TCAMs, > more memory, faster CPUs... and yes, deaggregation is very simple task > for originating network - much easier than playing with the origin flag, > which is not understanded widely. The two issues are orthogonal. Deaggregating sources have been cost-shifting [in a highly visible and easily examined and often trivially-filtered] manner for ages. There is no data to support the premis that touching origin creates more of this behavior and plenty to refute it. Deaggregation preexists and was always a problem with which one had to deal as supposed "needed TE" by those too cheap to build a proper network sadly became more acceptable over time. A midspan network deaggregating someone else's prefixes is broken and gets called out, generally by the originator if they have a clue. > > I can state it is not imagination when I encountered networks > > doing this in the past for prefixes they were sourcing. To be clear - > > these were prefixes being sourced by a neighbor who was providing > > different origin codes on different sessions. Either they were [to > > Nick Hilliard's point] using different kit and unaware of the differnt > > implementations or [as evidence bore out] purposefully shifting traffic > > without arrangement on links that were worse for me and in violation > > of the agreement we entered into when peering. > > More specific prefix in addition to aggregate one visible only over > specific peers will do the job, too. And will do that job better... but > for what cost (not only to you)...? See above. > > There certainly were historical reasons for treating origin as sacrosanct. > > Time has marched on and those reasons are now *historical*, hence the > > quite reasonable updat eto the RFC. You seem to fail to understand that > > MED comes after origin on the decision tree, and therefore someone can > > influence traffic carriage without agreement. > > You seem to fail realize other (easier) ways to influence traffic > carriage. Deaggregation with selective route announcement is quite > common way, many networks do that. See above. Cheers, Joe -- RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE / NewNOG