Our present BGP policy states that if a customer has non-portable address
space from another upstream ISP, the customer must provide us with an
official letter from the owner of the IP address space which authorizes us
to re-announce those routes. I feel that this is a reasonable and just
policy, but we've been getting quite a bit of flack from customers who
claim that nobody else is requiring this.
Are other backbone providers really just announcing whatever their
customers ask them to announce? Are we unreasonable in requiring
permission to re-announce foreign netblocks? Is there any documentation
that sets this down as policy or at least a BCP?
Also, is it unreasonable to expect someone who wants to speak BGP to know
how to make entries in the RADB, or at least read and follow the
instructions? I'm getting the feeling that the latest tech briefings for
executives are touting the wonders of BGP, 'cause I'm seeing a lot of
pointy-haired bosses demanding it.
ObNetops: router bgp xxxx
neighbor 192.168.100.2 remote-as 64666
neighbor 192.168.100.2 route-map cust-do-not-readvertise in
neighbor 192.168.100.2 route-map out-customer out
Jeremiah Kristal
Qwest Internet Solutions
Manager, Network Services
201-319-5764
x284 internal
if a customer is multi-homed we will announce a (possibly improper) subset
of the other tier one provider's space.
if a customer is showing the good judgement of rehoming to us, we will
announce the (possibly improper) subset of the other tier one provider's
space for as long as the renumbering grace period of the other provider.
we expect the same of others.
randy
Of course, but do you require any documentation from their other provider
that they are allowed to re-announce those addresses? The issue isn't
whether we should re-announce, but what documentation we should require
before doing so.
Jeremiah
Jeremiah Kristal
Qwest Internet Solutions
Manager, Network Services
201-319-5764
x284 internal
do you require any documentation from their other provider that they are
allowed to re-announce those addresses? The issue isn't whether we should
re-announce, but what documentation we should require before doing so.
uh, we're kinda on a first name basis with our peers at the other tier ones.
formality is usually not needed.
when one of their less clued/connected departments gets involved, we usually
count on the clueful to handle their own organization's internal issues.
most folk really do understand how the game is played. probably verio
stresses it more than most, due to much address space still swipped into the
name of the isps we acquired and there is major administrivia (legal sale
documents and all) to update it. but most of our friends know that too.
occasionally we hit an peer's admin person who's been kept in a dark room
for some years. again we could on the clueful to pass it on.
randy
Our present BGP policy states that if a customer has non-portable address
space from another upstream ISP, the customer must provide us with an
official letter from the owner of the IP address space which authorizes us
to re-announce those routes. I feel that this is a reasonable and just
policy, but we've been getting quite a bit of flack from customers who
claim that nobody else is requiring this.
I am not sure about USA, but it's usial practic here in Russia - we ask
e-mail permission from the network owner, and hardly recommend to change
address (and warn about _we are doing it at your own risk).
The problems are boths political and technical - Internet is not build
todays for such _by-specific_ customers and often, if we anounce the
specific of the other provider XX, we use partically the bandwidth of XX
(esp. if we have peering aggreement with XX).
Alex.
Randy.
You are not 100% right. Often the XX's customer is forced to use another
ISP for internet access (for example, customer change location and could
not order digital trunk from the new one), but can't renumbered quickly.
And so on...
You can anounce specifics of the other ISP, and it allow this customer to
work for some time and be successed. Through, some cases (if you lost
external connectivity, for example, but you have peering connectivity
with XX, for example) cause you to use bandwidth of XX, or XX can be
acused in waisting routing-table-space, or the prefix-length limitations
(by such ISP as Sprint) cause some mirrouting, etc etc... THis means we
always treat such decisions as _temporary_ and always ask permission fro
the net-block owner to do it; and vice versa.
Alex.