[122359] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: CYMRU Bogon Peering
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Thomas Magill)
Fri Feb 12 16:19:49 2010
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 13:19:22 -0800
In-Reply-To: <2ad0f9f61002121314p7d081ae0o9dc365b699f0443e@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Thomas Magill" <tmagill@providecommerce.com>
To: "Jack Carrozzo" <jack@crepinc.com>,
"Steve Bertrand" <steve@ibctech.ca>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Thanks to everyone who replied. That settles it! I'm going to do it.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jack Carrozzo [mailto:jack@crepinc.com]=20
Sent: Friday, February 12, 2010 1:14 PM
To: Steve Bertrand
Cc: Thomas Magill; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: CYMRU Bogon Peering
I agree - quick setup and no issues. A++ Would Peer Again
-Jack Carrozzo
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 4:10 PM, Steve Bertrand <steve@ibctech.ca> =
wrote:
> Thomas Magill wrote:
>> In efforts to further protect us against threats I am considering
>> establishing Bogon peers to enable me to filter unallocated address
>> space. =A0I am just wondering if this is a worthwhile step to take =
and if
>> anyone has ran into any issues or points of concern that I may want =
to
>> take into account. =A0Thanks in advance for any input.
>
> I've used the service for a couple of years, and I find it works
> wonderfully. Newly distributed IANA blocks are removed promptly, so no
> need to worry about that.
>
> I peer with Cymru on my RTBH trigger boxes, which then redistribute =
the
> list to all edge gear which blackholes it (dest and source) thanks to =
uRPF.
>
> No manual config or rule manipulation.
>
> Steve
>
>
>
