[33505] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: How does one make not playing nice with each other scale? (Was:
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joshua Goodall)
Sat Jan 13 15:15:33 2001
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 21:13:35 +0100 (CET)
From: Joshua Goodall <joshua@roughtrade.net>
To: Mark Mentovai <mark-list@mentovai.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.31.0101131306050.23844-100000@oak.ggn.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0101132053180.36282-100000@juice.shallow.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Sat, 13 Jan 2001, Mark Mentovai wrote:
> Paul Vixie wrote:
> >Nope. No part of ORBS is listed in AS7777. The block which inspired this
> >thread is completely private to AS6461 and has to do with that network's AUG.
>
> This sort of brings up an interesting point, though. Has anyone ever
> thought about adding a mechanism to BGP for advertising "anti-routes?"
Look at:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-chen-bgp-route-filter-01.txt
however this functionality was not incorporated into the very recent
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-idr-bgp4-12.txt
Note that you still can't reach the nullroutes in this case if you have
the path 6461 702$, so this (or the alternative suggested,
community-tagging a nullroute feed for munging localprefs) would have to
be deployed amongst every above peer - with their cooperation - to avoid
asymmetric peculiarities.
Quite a lot of work just to allow orbs to probe you :) although the
generic case as addressed in the route-filter draft is quite interesting.
joshua
