Route leak in Bangladesh

Wed Jul 1 15:53:42 UTC 2015

That they do. Thanks for a great system, BTW! 

----- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

Midwest Internet Exchange 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 

----- Original Message -----

From: "Nick Hilliard" <nick at foobar.org> 
To: "Mark Tinka" <mark.tinka at seacom.mu>, "Jared Mauch" <jared at puck.Nether.net> 
Cc: "North American Network Operators' Group" <nanog at nanog.org> 
Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2015 10:11:13 AM 
Subject: Re: Route leak in Bangladesh 

On 01/07/2015 16:02, Mark Tinka wrote: 
> Honestly, I'm ambivalent about using the IRR data for prefix-list 
> generation (even without RPSL), also because of how much junk there is 
> in there, and also how redundant some of it really is, e.g., someone 
> creating a /32 (IPv4) route object and yet we only accept up to a /24 
> (IPv4) on the actual eBGP session, e.t.c. 

We went through this a couple of years ago at INEX and ended up with a 
provisioning system which allows the operator to only allow specific IRRDB 
source: entries, customisable per customer. You're right that it would be 
foolish to accept any IRRDB source because a lot of them are complete trash. 

Otherwise, it works incredibly well for us and has stopped innumerable 
prefix leaks and other silly misconfigs. 

The source code is available on github.com/inex. Lots of IXPs use it in 
production. 

Nick 