Dear all, I am sending this e-mail with the purpose of stating the position of the Computer Networks Research Group (in the following CNRG) at Roma Tre University about the AS-SET experiments. This mail covers only organization issues and is not on technical stuff. We shall address technical problems in a separate e-mail in the next few days. Until now, the relationship between RIS and CNRG has been maintained by Lorenzo. We have complete confidence in Lorenzo and he will continue to be the interface between our two groups. This e-mail does not intend to bypass him. 1. A group of researchers at CNRG, including Lorenzo, has developed new techniques for network discovery, at BGP level. Several experiments have already been done in the labs and in the ipv6 network. 2. We were interested in carrying on experiments on the ipv4 network. 3. Lorenzo discussed the issue with people at RIS. There was an agreement to use 84.205.73.0/24 and 84.205.89.0/24, originated in AS12654, for the experiments. 4. Around Feb 20 Lorenzo prepared an e-mail to be sent to a couple of mailing lists announcing the experiments. The e-mail was explicitely approved by, at least, Henk, Arife, Shane. 5. The e-mail was sent on Feb 25 to a large audience. There were a few reactions. 6. We scheduled the experiments for Feb 28- Mar 1. 7. Since we knew that the experiments could have been perceived with some suspect from the network operators, we decided to be more cautious than the RIS itself. Hence, we asked further advice by calling people at RIS on Feb 28. The answer was essentially: "people shouldn't get upset". Also, we decided to post an even more explicit message on the nanog mailing list. 8. There were many reactions, most negative. 9. Henk decided to stop the experiments. I fully agree with the decision. I do not agree with the contents of the e-mail that was sent at nanog. In my opinion the e-mail put in a bad light Lorenzo, CNRG, and RIS: - Lorenzo was presented as an "overenthusiastic student" that behaves irresponsibly. This is clearly not true (see above). - CNRG and RIS are presented as a light-heart organizations that put extremely important issues in the hands of a student without control. I also disagree on the method. Since Lorenzo was in charge of announcing the experiments, he was the one to announce their cancellation. Sincerely, Pino
Dear All,
3. Lorenzo discussed the issue with people at RIS. There was an agreement to use 84.205.73.0/24 and 84.205.89.0/24, originated in AS12654, for the experiments.
4. Around Feb 20 Lorenzo prepared an e-mail to be sent to a couple of mailing lists announcing the experiments. The e-mail was explicitely approved by, at least, Henk, Arife, Shane.
When I approved the mail, I did not realize (anymore) that the experiment would involve other AS# than 12654. Whether this is because Lorenzo didn't tell me, I didn't hear it, I forgot or whatever, I do not know. Fact is, shortly after the mail, people started sending mails objecting to using their AS# for this experiment.
9. Henk decided to stop the experiments. I fully agree with the decision. I do not agree with the contents of the e-mail that was sent at nanog.
I was doing my mail on Thursday morning and saw dozens of mails with negative comments, including a couple of private ones, and a discussion that was rapidly getting out of hand. Lorenzo was not reachable at that time. So, I decided to stop this experiment and send a mail to the lists about this, before any more harm was done.
In my opinion the e-mail put in a bad light Lorenzo, CNRG, and RIS: - Lorenzo was presented as an "overenthusiastic student" that behaves irresponsibly. This is clearly not true (see above).
I only said overenthousiastic. I do not think that he behaved irresponsible. The experiment was carefully thought out and will not do any damage, the only problem was in the presentation of the experiment and the fact that we're using other people's resources without informing them (and giving them a chance to opt-out). I believe that we did the best we could to control the damage by cancelling the experiment as soon as things appeared to go out of control. Yes, this did not give the best impression for CNRG and RIPE NCC, but I believe letting this discussion continue for a few more hours, would have caused more damage. I might be wrong. Finally, I think we can discuss this forever, but I doubt that much good will come out of it. What we should learn from this, is that we should think twice when announcing a new experiment and not use other people's resources without their permission. I hope that CNRG and RIS can go back to work on BGP, Kind regards, Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Look here junior, don't you be so happy. And for Heaven's sake, don't you be so sad. (Tom Verlaine)
Dear Henk, thanks a lot for your e-mail.
I hope that CNRG and RIS can go back to work on BGP,
Sure, we are making a great work together and I hope it will continue. At this point I would like to ask Lorenzo to answer the following e-mail by Randy Bush (sent to the nanog mailing list)
i think we're ratholing here. can you tell us in simple words
o what you are trying to learn with your experiment and why it will help us understand or better manage our networks (thanks rodney)
o why the way you are doing it is safe and will not affect the packets we're trying to move for our customers in negative ways
with an e-mail (in the same thread) that says that we are currently working on a brief document that tries to address the two issues and that will be available soon. We shall write it in two or three weeks (hopefully). Best, Pino
participants (2)
-
Giuseppe Di Battista -
Henk Uijterwaal