[29401] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: using IRR tools for BGP route filtering
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (jhsu@mur.com)
Wed Jun 21 11:48:57 2000
Message-Id: <200006211546.LAA17677@rathe.mur.com>
From: jhsu@mur.com
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-reply-to: <E134lVH-0000EI-00@roam.psg.com> of Wed, 21 Jun 2000 15:29:19 BST.
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 11:46:06 -0400
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Randy Bush is rumoured to have written:
* the problem is that routers will not run acls of the size needed to filter
* large peers were they to register. so why should i whine at them to
* register.
whine at who? the large peers?
they should register so that when one notices something odd, one can
query to see what it _should_ be. they should register, and maintain their
registrations, so that in an ideal world, their announcements would match
what they have registered, and be nicely aggreagted, too!
i emphatically DO NOT think that large providers should filter other
peers. i think the large providers should filter their own announcements,
by carefully verifying what a downstream wishes to announce before
accepting it, filtering the customer announcements, and aggregating their
announcements to peers.
i think its silly to try and regulate the world from ones own corner.
regulate your corner, and encourage others to do the same. i don't care if
said encouragement is by tacit agreememnt, or bound up in legealese in
peering agreements.
* there used to be a provider which configured their routers to statically
* route based on the registry. that provider is gone.
a lot of things are gone.
but then, was it really their routing policies that killed them, in the end?
_k
