[169512] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Filter on IXP
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Patrick W. Gilmore)
Fri Feb 28 11:58:03 2014
From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>
In-Reply-To: <5310BEEA.9070403@foobar.org>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 11:56:47 -0500
To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Feb 28, 2014, at 11:52 , Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> wrote:
> On 28/02/2014 15:42, J=E9r=F4me Nicolle wrote:
>> Instead, IXPs _could_ enforce BCP38 too. Mapping the route-server's
>> received routes to ingress _and_ egress ACLs on IXP ports would =
mitigate
>> the role of BCP38 offenders within member ports. It's almost like =
uRPF
>> in an intelligent and useable form.
>=20
> this will break horribly as soon as you have an IXP member which =
provides
> transit to other multihomed networks.
Or to anyone who doesn't announce their full downstream table to the =
route servers. Or to people who don't use route servers. Or to someone =
who does traffic engineering. Or ....
--=20
TTFN,
patrick
