Route table growth and hardware limits...talk to the filter

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

-- 
Jared Mauch  | pgp key available via finger from jared at puck.nether.net
clue++;      | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/  My statements are only mine.