[32266] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: [doable?] peer filtering (was Re: Trusting BGP sessions)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (john heasley)
Wed Nov 15 17:32:51 2000
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 14:13:36 -0800
From: john heasley <heas@shrubbery.net>
To: Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com>
Cc: heas@shrubbery.net, nanog@merit.edu
Message-ID: <20001115141336.G1409@shrubbery.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20001115220519.29265.cpmta@c004.sfo.cp.net>; from sean@donelan.com on Wed, Nov 15, 2000 at 02:05:19PM -0800
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Wed, Nov 15, 2000 at 02:05:19PM -0800, Sean Donelan darkened my spool with the following:
> On Wed, 15 November 2000, john heasley wrote:
> >
> > great, that must be why these problems dont occur. which solution are
> > you using? i'm not flinging s*!@ over the fence; i'm truely interested.
>
>
> If the problem is truely no router vendor make a router capable of
> holding a fully filtered route table we need to tell the router vendors
> this is a mandatory requirement or we won't buy their routers. Remember,
> once upon a time when no router could handle more than 30,000 routes or
> 64,000 routes. Once the router vendors were told what was needed, they
> built a box to meet that need.
>
> It is not a given that no router will never support filtering a full
> tier-1 ISP's route table. Its just no one has made it a requirement.
>
> Lets make it a requirement of the router vendors.
no doubt. and there are new vendors stepping up to the table - some
of which dont have ear wax (yet?), hoping to get a piece of the backbone
market.
what do we do for today, with the widgets we have? what do we (collectively)
want to ask vendors to implement?
