Route table growth and hardware limits...talk to the filter
jared at puck.nether.net
Sat Sep 8 13:17:16 UTC 2007
On Sat, Sep 08, 2007 at 08:22:24AM -0400, William Allen Simpson wrote:
> Jon Lewis wrote:
> > If filtering is inevitible, I think it's worth reviving the CIDR police and
> > perhaps scaring some clue into the networks that stand to be filtered off
> > the net by anyone needing to do any level of filtering.
> I agree.
> The first step would be figuring out the needed aggregate announcements,
> contacting the providers or upstreams.
> Who is willing to run a database to coordinate the effort?
> In North America, most everybody has returned from holidays. Let's make
> September the month of CIDR improvement! And October 1st the deadline....
> I do not agree the filters as originally proposed are "too aggressive".
> Traffic engineering with one's peers is all very well and good, but at
> the second AS (or overseas) it's not acceptable.
I think this is the most important point so far. There are a lot
of providers that think that their announcements need to be global
to manage link/load balancing with their peers/upstreams. Proper use
of no-export (or similar) on the more specifics and the aggregate
being sent out will reduce the global noise significantly.
Perhaps some of the providers to these networks will nudge them
a bit more to use proper techniques.
I'm working on routing leaks this month. There have already been
over 2600 leak events today that could have been prevented with as-path
filters of some sort, either on a cutomer or peer. (this would obviously
be in-addition to prefix-list filters).
Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from jared at puck.nether.net
clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine.
More information about the NANOG