[168299] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: best practice for advertising peering fabric routes
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Florian Weimer)
Sat Jan 18 05:37:40 2014
From: Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>
To: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2014 11:37:23 +0100
In-Reply-To: <F290F3A4-D378-4655-8862-B1F4FD700F67@ianai.net> (Patrick
W. Gilmore's message of "Tue, 14 Jan 2014 22:11:06 -0500")
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
* Patrick W. Gilmore:
> NEVER EVER EVER put an IX prefix into BGP, IGP, or even static
> route. An IXP LAN should not be reachable from any device not
> directly attached to that LAN. Period.
>
> Doing so endangers your peers & the IX itself. It is on the order of
> not implementing BCP38, except no one has the (lame, ridiculous,
> idiotic, and pure cost-shifting BS) excuse that they "can't" do
> this.
Any ideas why DE-CIX doesn't enforce this?
One advantage is that IXP participants can perform emergency
maintenance if they have isolated their IXP router from their own
network.
