best practice for advertising peering fabric routes
Patrick W. Gilmore
patrick at ianai.net
Wed Jan 15 03:11:06 UTC 2014
Pardon the top post, but I really don't have anything to comment below other than to agree with Chris and say rfc5963 is broken.
NEVER EVER EVER put an IX prefix into BGP, IGP, or even static route. An IXP LAN should not be reachable from any device not directly attached to that LAN. Period.
Doing so endangers your peers & the IX itself. It is on the order of not implementing BCP38, except no one has the (lame, ridiculous, idiotic, and pure cost-shifting BS) excuse that they "can't" do this.
On Jan 14, 2014, at 21:22 , Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 9:09 PM, Cb B <cb.list6 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 14, 2014 6:01 PM, "Eric A Louie" <elouie at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> I have a connection to a peering fabric and I'm not distributing the
>> peering fabric routes into my network.
> good plan.
>>> I see three options
>>> 1. redistribute into my igp (OSPF)
>>> 2. configure ibgp and route them within that infrastructure. All the
>> default routes go out through the POPs so iBGP would see packets destined
>> for the peering fabric and route it that-a-way
>>> 3. leave it "as is", and let the outbound traffic go out my upstreams and
>> the inbound traffic come back through the peering fabric
> 4. all peering-fabric routes get next-hop-self on your peering router
> before going into ibgp...
> all the rest of your network sees your local loopback as nexthop and
> things just work.
>>> Advantages and disadvantages, pros and cons? Recommendations?
>> Experiences, good and bad?
>>> I have 5 POPs, 2 OSPF areas, and have not brought iBGP up between the
>> POPs yet. That's another issue completely from a planning perspective.
>> I like no-export
More information about the NANOG