[10687] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: weird BGP cisco-ism? [problem resolved]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Chris Garner)
Fri Jul 11 21:58:18 1997
From: Chris Garner <cgarner@sni.net>
To: danny@genuity.net
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 1997 18:19:24 -0600 (MDT)
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <199707120007.AAA07497@ice.genuity.net> from "Danny McPherson" at Jul 11, 97 05:07:30 pm
>
>
>> I'd think prefix based filters would be more likely to be correct.
>> Since you have to explicitly list what you think you should be announcing
>> you protect against having routes you don't expect in your tables and
>> against having interactions that cause unexpected routes to get tagged as
>> announceable.
>>
>
>OK, so then what do you do with BGP customers? Ideally, you'd be filtering
>the ingress advertisements from your customers. Now you have to add those
>prefixes to your egress filters as well.
>
>Using communities to accomplish this is much more efficient and "hands-off".
>
>-danny
>
>
>
You can build your customer BGP filters off data in the IRR. Make
it a requirement that BGP customers must keep that information up to date
(or do it for them).
--
-Chris (cgarner@sni.net)
