[189846] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: intra-AS messaging for route leak prevention
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed))
Wed Jun 8 07:48:41 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: "Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed)" <kotikalapudi.sriram@nist.gov>
To: Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu>, Job Snijders <job@instituut.net>,
"nanog-post@rsuc.gweep.net" <nanog-post@rsuc.gweep.net>
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 11:48:36 +0000
In-Reply-To: <4cd6ac15-add6-b1cf-e538-bf65202f6937@seacom.mu>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Thanks for the inputs about the inter-AS messaging and route-leak preventio=
n
techniques between neighboring ASes. Certainly helpful information and also=
useful
for the draft (draft-ietf-idr-route-leak-detection-mitigation).
However, my question was focused on "intra-AS" messaging.
About conveying from ingress to egress router (within your AS),
the info regarding the type of peer from which the route was received at in=
gress.
This info is used at the egress router to avoid leaking a route.
Question: Is the "common practice" described in the original message
http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2016-June/086242.html (see the st=
uff in quotes)
sufficient or are there other ways in common use in which network operators=
=20
convey the said information from ingress to egress router?
Sriram
