Max Prefix Out, was Re: Verizon 701 Route leak?
alejandroacostaalamo at gmail.com
Thu Aug 31 05:01:25 UTC 2017
What a terrific idea..., simple & useful
El 29/8/17 a las 1:41 p.m., Michael Still escribió:
> 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 studio442.com.au> 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:
More information about the NANOG