[151016] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: filtering /48 is going to be necessary
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (George Bonser)
Fri Mar 9 22:09:45 2012
From: George Bonser <gbonser@seven.com>
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2012 03:08:46 +0000
In-Reply-To: <053DCC31-AE1D-417B-8A54-05E36923C759@delong.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
> Owen said:
>=20
> I'm not a big fan, either, but, I think that the concept of "be
> conservative in what you announce and liberal in what you accept" has
> to apply in this case. Since it is a common (quasi-)legitimate
> practice, arbitrarily filtering it is ill-advised IMHO.
While I agree in principle, 16 bits of disaggregation has the potential for=
a lot of mayhem and 32 bits (accepting /64 from PA) would be catastrophic.=
This would seem to be a case where upstream providers can assist the end =
user in obtaining their own PI space if they wish to multihome. It would b=
e in the provider's interest as it would reduce the number of potential com=
plaints from customers concerning multihoming problems.
I filter /32 from PA space and am currently filtering one route but since t=
he aggregate it is from has the same next hop and since I don't see the rou=
te from anyone else, I'm not worried about it.
