[189982] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: intra-AS messaging for route leak prevention
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joe Provo)
Sun Jun 12 01:45:55 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2016 01:45:51 -0400
From: Joe Provo <nanog-post@rsuc.gweep.net>
To: Job Snijders <job@instituut.net>
In-Reply-To: <20160610085017.GF2524@Vurt.local>
Reply-To: nanog-post@rsuc.gweep.net
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 10:50:17AM +0200, Job Snijders wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> On Wed, Jun 08, 2016 at 08:48:11AM -0400, Joe Provo wrote:
[snip]
> > It is useful to note that AS_PATH if often also involved on egress
> > decisions.
>
> You say 'often', but I don't recognise that design pattern from my own
> experience. A weakness with the egress point (in context of route leak
> prevention)
[snip]
I wrote 'egress decisions'. While Leo pointed out some additional
value, simple things like preventing private ASNs leaking (you
mustn't trust the vendor knob) fall in this bucket. The list of
potential things can be longer, but that's either microphone or
bar conversation this coming week. :-)
Cheers,
Joe
--
RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / CotSG / Usenix / NANOG
