Max Prefix Out, was Re: Verizon 701 Route leak?

Michael Still stillwaxin at
Tue Aug 29 18:41:53 UTC 2017

I agree a max-prefix outbound could potentially be useful and would
hopefully not be too terribly difficult to implement for most vendors.

Perhaps RFC4486 would need to be updated to reflect this as a
possibility as well?

On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 5:41 PM, Julien Goodwin <nanog at> wrote:
> On 28/08/17 18:34, Job Snijders wrote:
>> Finally, it may be worthwhile exploring if we can standardize and
>> promote maximum prefix limits applied on the the _sending_ side. This
>> way you protect your neighbor (and the Internet at large) by
>> self-destructing when you inadvertently announce more than what you'd
>> expect to announce. BIRD has this functionality
>> however I am not aware of other implementations. Feedback welcome!
> Having just dug up the reference for some strange reason...
> Back at NANOG38 (2006) Tom Scholl mentioned in a talk on max prefix:
> "Perhaps maximum-prefix outbound?
> (Suggested by Eric Bell years ago)"
> Notably Juniper does now have prefix-export-limit, but only for
> readvertisement into IS-IS or OSPF:

[stillwaxin at ~]$ cat .signature
cat: .signature: No such file or directory
[stillwaxin at ~]$

More information about the NANOG mailing list