[100068] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: more-specifics via IX
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John Payne)
Mon Oct 15 08:36:32 2007
From: John Payne <john@sackheads.org>
To: "nanog@medit.edu" <nanog@medit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <8115846F-1AD7-4964-AAF2-1CE22B3F4A25@de-cix.net>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 08:33:13 -0400
Cc: Bradley Urberg Carlson <buc@visi.com>, "nanog@merit.edu" <nanog@merit.edu>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Oct 15, 2007, at 7:41, Wolfgang Tremmel <wolfgang.tremmel@de-
cix.net> wrote:
>
> Am 15.10.2007 um 07:09 schrieb Bradley Urberg Carlson:
>
>>
>> I have a few customers' customers, who appear at a local IX. Due
>> to the MLPA-like nature of the IX, I hear their prefixes both at
>> the IX and via my own transit customers. I normally use localpref
>> to prefer customer advertisements over peers' advertisements.
>>
>> There is a customer's customer who is advertising more-specifics at
>> the IX (and using a different source AS, to boot). I can think of
>> a couple ways to prevent hearing these, but thought I should ask
>> for suggestions first.
>>
>
> you should honor your customers routing policy and simply accept the
> routes.
Whilst it is nice to accept a downstream of a downstream's routing
policy like that I don't think it is your place to say that. The other
response asking what the problem is also is a good example of the
misunderstanding of problems with the shim6 solution although at a
different place in the network. If MY policy is to send all customer
traffic through my customer connections, I should be able to do that.
To answer the OP's question I'd be looking at manually filtering the
more specifics if they are also sending the aggregates through the IX.
