[169541] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Filter on IXP
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Royce Williams)
Sun Mar 2 11:35:46 2014
In-Reply-To: <53132B83.7020707@foobar.org>
From: Royce Williams <royce@techsolvency.com>
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2014 07:34:49 -0900
To: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 4:00 AM, Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> wrote:
> There are many places where automated RPF makes a lot of sense. An IXP is
> not one of them.
That make sense. Everyone is rightly resistant to automated filtering.
But could we automate getting the word out instead?
Can obvious BCP38 cluelessness be measured? Maybe as a ratio of
advertised to unadvertised egressing ASes, etc. ?
If so, then if your downstream/peer is even *partially* BCP38, give
them a pass. They are at least somewhat aware of the problem.
Otherwise:
- Visually red-flag their BCP38 stats/percentage in RADb;
- Send them an automatic email once a week;
- Let upstreams *optionally* not automatically update their routes via
RADb until they call to ask why;
etc.
Can we combat the awareness problem in bulk -- without *filtering* in bulk?
Royce
