|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org In-Reply-To: <201405080751.13601.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> Date: Thu, 8 May 2014 10:41:21 -0400 From: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com> To: mark.tinka@seacom.mu Cc: nanog list <nanog@nanog.org> Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 1:51 AM, Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu> wrote: > On Wednesday, May 07, 2014 07:28:46 PM Peter Rubenstein > wrote: > >> Operationally speaking, AS1 should not be leaking routes >> from one upstream to the other. Bad route policy. ideally it'd be nice to be valley-free... so to speak. >> Also, AS3 should not accept routes from AS1 that don't >> belong to it. Customer router filtering would prevent >> this. always with the route filtering... routes want to be free man, free! > How I wish this happened in real life. > > We are chasing route leaks several AS's down the path that > are not even remotely connected to us on a weekly basis. But > I guess that's what they pay us for :-(. if only there were some technology that could be used to thwart such things.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |