[195641] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Max Prefix Out, was Re: Verizon 701 Route leak?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Alejandro Acosta)
Thu Aug 31 01:37:33 2017
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Alejandro Acosta <alejandroacostaalamo@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 00:01:25 -0500
In-Reply-To: <CAPDTRij6w+fq1EFcUi33nsyrOsbi3cadTY8hQ6j0q-CnEa1yuQ@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
What a terrific idea..., simple & useful
El 29/8/17 a las 1:41 p.m., Michael Still escribió:
> I agree a max-prefix outbound could potentially be useful and would
> hopefully not be too terribly difficult to implement for most vendors.
>
> Perhaps RFC4486 would need to be updated to reflect this as a
> possibility as well?
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 5:41 PM, Julien Goodwin <nanog@studio442.com.au> wrote:
>> On 28/08/17 18:34, Job Snijders wrote:
>>> Finally, it may be worthwhile exploring if we can standardize and
>>> promote maximum prefix limits applied on the the _sending_ side. This
>>> way you protect your neighbor (and the Internet at large) by
>>> self-destructing when you inadvertently announce more than what you'd
>>> expect to announce. BIRD has this functionality
>>> http://bird.network.cz/?get_doc&f=bird-3.html#proto-export-limit
>>> however I am not aware of other implementations. Feedback welcome!
>> Having just dug up the reference for some strange reason...
>>
>> Back at NANOG38 (2006) Tom Scholl mentioned in a talk on max prefix:
>> "Perhaps maximum-prefix outbound?
>> (Suggested by Eric Bell years ago)"
>> https://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog38/presentations/scholl-maxpfx.pdf
>>
>> Notably Juniper does now have prefix-export-limit, but only for
>> readvertisement into IS-IS or OSPF:
>> https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/reference/configuration-statement/prefix-export-limit-edit-protocols-isis.html
>
>
