best practice for advertising peering fabric routes

Cb B cb.list6 at gmail.com
Wed Jan 15 03:19:24 UTC 2014


On Jan 14, 2014 7:13 PM, "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick at ianai.net> wrote:
>
> 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.
>

+1.  Rfc5963 needs to update that guidance. Set next hop self loopback0 and
done

CB
> --
> TTFN,
> patrick
>
>
> 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.
> >>>
> >>> thanks
> >>> Eric
> >>>
> >>
> >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5963
> >>
> >> I like no-export
> >
>
>



More information about the NANOG mailing list