[43433] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Filtering Best Practices, et al (Was Verio Peering, Gordon's Knot)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Stephane Bortzmeyer)
Wed Oct 10 04:54:41 2001
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 10:54:03 +0200
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@gitoyen.net>
To: "Grant A. Kirkwood" <grant@virtical.net>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Message-ID: <20011010105403.A889@internatif.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <3BC3108B.3C3FC383@virtical.net>; from grant@virtical.net on Tue, Oct 09, 2001 at 07:58:19AM -0700
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Tue, Oct 09, 2001 at 07:58:19AM -0700,
Grant A. Kirkwood <grant@virtical.net> wrote
a message of 18 lines which said:
> I'm currently in the process of setting up a new border router, and the
> recent debate on the above topic got me wondering what the best practice
> filtering policy is? Is there one?
I'm interested to see if people filter route anouncements on the basis
of registered routes in an Internet Routing Registry. In our area
(Europe), the RIPE database typically contains less than half of the
routes which are actually announced. I assume it is not better in
ARINland.
On the basis of inetnum objects (network addresses, not routes), it is
a bit better in coverage but you cannot use inetnum directly in a
comparison, you have to check that a BGP announce *includes* at least
one registered inetnum.
To summary, I dropped the idea. Does anyone implemented it?
