AS-Path - ORF Draft
job at ntt.net
Mon Oct 23 13:24:51 CST 2017
On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 07:53:03AM -0500, Mike Hammett wrote:
> Should I assume that invigorating traction for a 17 year old draft is
> rather difficult?
John Heasley told me that a fundamental difficulty here is that not
every implementation uses the same style/type of regular expressions.
Unifying this behaviour across vendors will require a lot of pull.
> It is my understanding that Network B does wish to accept Network A's
> prefixes elsewhere, just not here. I believe that specifying the block
> via IRR would be universal and probably not wanted.
You can make it IX specific by using an old proposal called 'RPSL VIA'.
Look for "The script supports most of the IETF snijders-rpsl-via draft
> Some of my fellow IX operators have advised me to avoid doing manual
> filtering for a variety of reasons.
Yes, they are right. The moment the route server operator introduces
hacks like that, the affected participants may forget those hacks
existed over time.
On the flip side, if Network B can't filter out the announcements, or
insists on using a pre-policy maximum prefix limit - and Network A
refuses to add a suppression community to their announcements to the
route server (maybe because they want to cookie stamp all those
configs), what can you (as person in the middle) do?
If both network A and network B refuse to cooperate / coordinate, it
somewhat dilutes the value of the route server to participants C/D/E
because network B keeps flapping.
> Which IXes have a web portal for that? Offlist is fine. I'd like to
> see that and talk to them about their implementation.
I believe NL-IX (https://nl-ix.net/) and VIX (https://www.vix.at) are
example IXPs that have this. There are probably a bunch more that offer
this type of feature.
More information about the NANOG