[168595] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Are specific "route" objects in RIR databases needed?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Darren O'Connor)
Fri Jan 31 01:54:26 2014
From: Darren O'Connor <darrenoc@outlook.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 06:54:12 +0000
To: Martin T <m4rtntns@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJx5YvEjZ0d2qEDG4gOsdBL-dDKx6bv3mpRSX864KJBhvrHWaQ@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no>, "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
I can't say what everyone else does, but we only make exact matches from rou=
te object to prefix-list
http://www.mellowd.co.uk/ccie
> On 30 Jan 2014, at 21:48, "Martin T" <m4rtntns@gmail.com> wrote:
>=20
> Job, Tore: ok, I see. So "route" object in RIR routing registry database
> for each announced prefix is needed only because some ISPs create filters
> exactly the size of the "route" object in database? So for example if ther=
e
> is a "route" object for 192.0.2.0/24 in RIR database, then ISP-A might
> create a following strict prefix-filter entry:
>=20
> policy-options {
> policy-statement EXAMPLE {
> term prefixes {
> from {
> route-filter 192.0.2.0/24 exact;
> }
> then next policy;
> }
> then reject;
> }
> }
>=20
> On the other hand, ISP-B might create loose filter based on the same
> "route" object like this:
>=20
> policy-options {
> policy-statement EXAMPLE {
> term prefixes {
> from {
> route-filter 192.0.2.0/24 upto /32;
> }
> then next policy;
> }
> then reject;
> }
> }
>=20
>=20
> PS: this is a theoretical question :) I'm also for keeping the BGP table a=
s
> short as possible.
>=20
>=20
> regards,
> Martin
>=20
>> On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 5:13 PM, Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no> wrote:
>>=20
>> * Job Snijders
>>=20
>>>> On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 06:51:59PM +0200, Martin T wrote:
>>>>=20
>>>> for example there is a small company with /22 IPv4 allocation from
>>>> RIPE in European region. This company is dual-homed and would like to
>>>> announce 4x /24 prefixes to both ISPs. Both ISP's update their
>>>> prefix-lists automatically based on records in RIPE database. For
>>>> example Level3 uses this practice at least in Europe. If this small
>>>> company creates a "route" object for it's /22 allocation, then is it
>>>> enough? Theoretically this would cover all four /24 networks. Or in
>>>> which situation it is useful/needed to have "route" object for each
>>>> /24 prefix?
>>>=20
>>> You should create a route object for each route that you announce, if
>>> you announce 4 x /24 you should create a route: object for each /24.
>>=20
>> +1
>>=20
>>> ps. Can you please send 20 dollarcent per /24 to my paypal account
>>> (job@instituut.net) with the reference "deaggregation fee"?
>>=20
>> Indeed.
>>=20
>> Martin, I'd suggest announcing the 4 x /24s to each ISP tagged with the
>> no-export community in order to achieve whatever you are trying to do,
>> *in addition* to the covering /22. That way you're not polluting Job,
>> my, and everyone else's routing tables more than necessary, only your
>> own ISPs', but then again you're actually paying them for the privilege.
>>=20
>> Tore
>>=20
