[157946] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: What is BCP re De-Aggregation: strict filtering /48s out of /32
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ben S. Butler)
Thu Nov 15 19:54:54 2012
From: "Ben S. Butler" <Ben.Butler@c2internet.net>
To: 'Matthew Petach' <mpetach@netflight.com>, "Ben S. Butler"
<Ben.Butler@c2internet.net>
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 00:54:12 +0000
In-Reply-To: <CAEmG1=p1vrx3vtLTBPU4MRk=KD9p-CDn2svs8mEiSck_TqUO+A@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Hi,
Ok. I am trying to encourage an inclusive exploration of an issue that seem=
s to be emergent. I am trying to get the community to articulate BCP not d=
ictate it.
"Would you want this logic to still apply if you have ::/0 in your table an=
ywhere?"
Yes obviously limits would apply to the filter on min and max in a recursiv=
e filter.
"It sounds a little bit like such people may be trying to shift the cost bu=
rden around in an odd fashion."
I am seeking community input before we manage to screw things up. I do not=
want a route table with 10M+ prefixes. One of the points of v6 is aggrega=
tion, would it not be silly to adopt a liaise a faire view to route polluti=
on and associated security considerations.
"But I also want to look like I'm one of the big default-free providers"
I struggle to not use direct language here. Firstly I never asserted I was =
DFZ or want to be, quiet the opposite, seeking clarification of BCP.
"default route towards something that *does* know how to get closer to the =
destination."
Filtering exists for internet security not route table size, your default r=
eturn path trashes that.
"you must be trying to play in the DFZ"
Lol, understand the issue at hand
"I think your use of the term "cheating" here is misapplied."
Read my suggestion, if you deliberately falsely tag a route with the wrong =
community under my proposed model, what would you call it?
"You're implying that your network is default free"
Nope, I am trying to find a solution that works for everyone that empowers =
the recipient AS with the choice of what they filter in an informed fashion=
for mutual benefit.
"DFZ provider to have to carry the longer prefixes *except you*"
Firstly that was a comment to the sub informed way some people work, howeve=
r, my point is we have a legacy that can not be solved by new policy. We h=
ave to accommodate that legacy and the answer is not to say lets just go wi=
th a /48 no questions asked. Networks involve design and engineering, we c=
an accommodate all peoples needs within a structure.
"And if you *do* carry ::/0 in your network from an upstream, this is all a=
moot point; filter away to whatever level your heart desires,"
You just agreed with me.
#
We are at the start of a new network, lets learn from the past. My posts a=
re open and non judgemental, please, keep to the issue, if you don't get it=
yet then clue up. Arms open here, can anyone else see the future cast iss=
ue I am tryin to raise if all the aggregate deag without control, we were a=
ll worried about PI multihoming a year ago and route table bloat.
Lets try to stay on point.
Ben
