Route table growth and hardware limits...talk to the filter
Bradley Urberg Carlson
buc at visi.com
Sat Sep 8 17:36:51 UTC 2007
Joe Provo wrote:
> Any policing effort will require co-ordination and to be stated
> publicly (here and elsewhere) that it is a Good Thing.
> A direct cookbook provided and lots of folks will still think
> you are asking too much of them.
Some of the networks this would help may be skittish of testing the
concept themselves. And no Tier-2 operator would want to be perceived
as making a cheap "hack", or of using a non-standard routing policy.
Documenting the practice (e.g. "RFCxxxx: filtering BGP route tables
using RIR allocations") would help the network operator answer customer
inquiries (and auditors' questions).
The approach could create a different kind of Tier-1/Tier-2 structure:
default-free networks and "default-enabled networks" ;) . A
default-enabled network, which lets its customers advertise long
prefixes out of its own allocations to other ISPs, would need to
purchase transit from default-free ISPs, or else coordinate holes in
the filters with their default-enabled upstream. Default-enabled
Tier-2's would need to be clear about this limitation when selling
transit to a BGP-speaking customer; and would be unable to use other
default-enabled ISPs as "carrier of last resort".
More information about the NANOG