On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 9:56 AM Mark Tinka <mark@tinka.africa> wrote: > > > On 10/5/21 15:40, Mark Tinka wrote: > > > > > I don't disagree with you one bit. It's for that exact reason that we > > built: > > > > https://as37100.net/ > > > > ... not for us, but specifically for other random network operators > > around the world whom we may never get to drink a crate of wine with. >
Can someone explain to me, preferably in baby words, why so many providers view information like https://as37100.net/?bgp as secret/proprietary? I've interacted with numerous providers who require an NDA or pinky-swear to get a list of their communities -- is this really just 1: security through obscurity, 2: an artifact of the culture of not sharing, 3: an attempt to seem cool by making you jump through hoops to prove your worthiness, 4: some weird 'mah competitors won't be able to figure out my secret sauce without knowing that 17 means Asia, or 5: something else? Yes, some providers do publish these (usually on the website equivalent of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard.”), and PeeringDB has definitely helped, but I still don't understand many providers stance on this... W > > > > I have to say that it has likely cut e-mails to our NOC as well as > > overall pain in half, if not more. > > What I forgot to add, however, is that unlike Facebook, we aren't a > major content provider. So we don't have a need to parallel our DNS > resiliency with our service resiliency, in terms of 3rd party > infrastructure. If our network were to melt, we'll already be getting it > from our eyeballs. > > If we had content of note that was useful to, say, a handful-billion > people around the world, we'd give some thought - however complex - to > having critical services running on 3rd party infrastructure. > > Mark. > -- The computing scientist’s main challenge is not to get confused by the complexities of his own making. -- E. W. Dijkstra