[181729] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Route leak in Bangladesh
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Nick Hilliard)
Wed Jul 1 11:20:09 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
X-Envelope-To: nanog@nanog.org
To: Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu>, Jared Mauch <jared@puck.Nether.net>
From: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2015 16:11:13 +0100
In-Reply-To: <559400F5.60401@seacom.mu>
Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On 01/07/2015 16:02, Mark Tinka wrote:
> Honestly, I'm ambivalent about using the IRR data for prefix-list
> generation (even without RPSL), also because of how much junk there is
> in there, and also how redundant some of it really is, e.g., someone
> creating a /32 (IPv4) route object and yet we only accept up to a /24
> (IPv4) on the actual eBGP session, e.t.c.
We went through this a couple of years ago at INEX and ended up with a
provisioning system which allows the operator to only allow specific IRRDB
source: entries, customisable per customer. You're right that it would be
foolish to accept any IRRDB source because a lot of them are complete trash.
Otherwise, it works incredibly well for us and has stopped innumerable
prefix leaks and other silly misconfigs.
The source code is available on github.com/inex. Lots of IXPs use it in
production.
Nick
