BGP prefix filter list

Ca By cb.list6 at
Wed May 15 18:50:41 UTC 2019

On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 7:27 AM Dan White <dwhite at> wrote:

> On 05/15/19 13:58 +0000, Phil Lavin wrote:
> >> We're an eyeball network. We accept default routes from our transit
> >> providers so in theory there should be no impact on reachability.
> >>
> >> I'm pretty concerned about things that I don't know due to inefficient
> >> routing, e.g. customers hitting a public anycast DNS server in the wrong
> >> location resulting in Geolocation issues.
> >
> >Ah! Understood. The default route(s) was the bit I missed. Makes a lot of
> >sense if you can't justify buying new routers.
> >
> >Have you seen issues with Anycast routing thus far? One would assume that
> >routing would still be fairly efficient unless you're picking up transit
> >from non-local providers over extended L2 links.
> We've had no issues so far but this was a recent change. There was no
> noticeable change to outbound traffic levels.

+1, there is no issue with this approach.

i have been taking “provider routes” + default for a long time, works

This makes sure you use each provider’s “customer cone” and SLA to the max
while reducing your route load / churn.

IMHO, you should only take full routes if your core business is providing
full bgp feeds to downstrean transit customers.

> --
> Dan White
> BTC Broadband
> Network Admin Lead
> Ph  918.366.0248 (direct)   main: (918)366-8000
> Fax 918.366.6610            email: dwhite at
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the NANOG mailing list