Peer Filtering

Paul Stewart pstewart at nexicomgroup.net
Tue Feb 3 05:12:20 CST 2009


That was one of our biggest worries.... people make mistakes and route
leaks happen.....

The unfortunate part we're faced with now is that we have several
downstream customers who are multihomed.  Because we're filtering out
some of the prefixes that are not in an IRR, those routes are not nearly
as attractive downstream giving the other carrier involved an
advantage..... I can see this is where convenience/economics start to
kick in ;(

Appreciate all the replies on-list and off-list - it seems there is
about 80/20 split on people doing prefix-list vs IRR filtering....

Paul


-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Barry [mailto:marty at supine.com] 
Sent: February 2, 2009 10:22 PM
To: nanog at nanog.org
Subject: Re: Peer Filtering

$quoted_author = "John van Oppen" ;
> 
> Here in the US we don't bother, max-prefix covers it...   It seems
that
> US originated prefixes are rather sporadically entered into the
routing
> DBs.
 
...and you are not worried about someone leaking a subset of routes?

I understand that most failure cases would trigger a max-prefix but a
typo
could allow just enough leakage to not hit max-prefix and yet still make
something "important" unreachable.

cheers
marty

-- 
with usenet gone, we just don't teach our kids entertainment-level
hyperbole
any more. --Paul Vixie

http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/2006-01/msg00593.html



 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and contains confidential and/or privileged material. If you received this in error, please contact the sender immediately and then destroy this transmission, including all attachments, without copying, distributing or disclosing same. Thank you."




More information about the NANOG mailing list