[195647] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Max Prefix Out, was Re: Verizon 701 Route leak?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (=?utf-8?q?J=C3=B6rg?= Kost)
Thu Aug 31 06:51:03 2017
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: "=?utf-8?q?J=C3=B6rg?= Kost" <jk@ip-clear.de>
To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 12:50:58 +0200
In-Reply-To: <8ba013d1-232b-1d60-50c2-6c3dd4a8c90f@gmail.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Hi,
but isn't peer A prefix-out a synonym for peer B prefix-in, that will
lead to the same result, e.g. a BGP teardown?
I just feel that this will add another factor, that people will not use
or abuse: neigh $x max-out infinite
What about adding an option to the BGP session that A & B do agree on a
fixed number of prefixes in both directions, so Bs prefix-in could be As
prefix-out automatically?
Jörg
On 31 Aug 2017, at 7:01, Alejandro Acosta wrote:
> 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?
>>
>>
