Clue's for Clue-less
Richard Irving
rirving at onecall.net
Mon Oct 26 21:27:14 UTC 1998
No proof one way, or the other, Martin....
The only neighbors I lost on this one, dumped something
they shouldn't..... If someone de-aggregates a /16,
it fires off alarms.... Although these may be valid advertisements,
We have opted for the "safe, rather than sorry" perspective.
(Besides, the alarms *assure* prompt attention)
Running the internet requires a certain degree of Altruism.
One should set policies that *protect* the core, rather than one's
own....... ;)
Doing other than this will result in a global internet
that is not reliable...And we all lose.
"The good of the many, outweigh the desires of the few"
(No matter *how* expensive a tie they wear ;)
PS: 11.2.xx and higher have this command...
Martin, Christian wrote:
>
> Richard Irving Wrote:
> > To "You Know Who You Are":
> >
> > Since some of the filtering policies on the core *seem* to
> > not benefit the Internet as a whole... (or is that Hole ? ;)
> >
> > May I suggest one that does:
> >
> > neighbor WWW.XXX.YYY.ZZZ maximum-prefix XXXXX
> >
> > It has a way of dropping "clue-nots"..... When
> > they demonstrate said title.....
> >
> > Your clueful attention appreciated.
> >
> > Signed,
> >
> > One *URKED* Core Operator.
> >
>
> What if it has a way of dropping big blocks? From what I've seen n
> sniffer traces, it depends on how the routes are stored in the BGP table
> that determines how they are advertised. This may have the effect of
> sinking large, valid netblocks. Unless you've seen otherwise...
>
> -Chris
More information about the NANOG
mailing list