[33867] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: peer "sanity" filters - best practices?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Sean Donelan)
Wed Jan 24 21:13:15 2001
Date: 24 Jan 2001 16:44:26 -0800
Message-ID: <20010125004426.118.cpmta@c004.sfo.cp.net>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Disposition: inline
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: dpm@flametree.com
From: Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Wed, 24 January 2001, "David P. Maynard" wrote:
> Several times over the past few years, the NANOG list has discussed the
> topic of if or how non-transit peer BGP announcements should be filtered.
> I searched through the archives, but couldn't find where anyone had
> published a summary of best practices for filtering announcements from
> peers that aren't one of the "top N" (for some debatable value of N)
> NSPs.
I don't know why you wouldn't also filter the Top N providers, since
most of the huge problems have resulted in poor filtering between
large providers. A small provider can't really have much of an impact
on the net unless their bogus announcements are propagated. Its the
propagation of bad information which turns it into a worldwide problem.
As to your question. Try searching for discussion about "access-list 112"
It will be a bit heated, but you'll find a few usefull tidbits in there.
