[46423] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Route filters, IRRs, and route objects
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Stephen Griffin)
Wed Mar 27 23:04:26 2002
Message-Id: <200203280403.XAA30446@elektra.ultra.net>
In-Reply-To: <1017254889.3594.108.camel@brick.ifxcorp.com> from Przemyslaw Karwasiecki at "Mar 27, 2002 01:48:09 pm"
To: nanog@merit.edu
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 23:03:53 -0500 (EST)
From: Stephen Griffin <stephen.griffin@rcn.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
In the referenced message, Przemyslaw Karwasiecki said:
>
> Hello,
>
> I would like to ask you for an advice in regards to
> "proxy registering" of customer route objects in IRR.
>
> What is the best current practice in a situation,
> when your customers want to advertise to you several
> /18 or /19 but they also have a requirement to be able
> to advertise some deaggregated routes on top of aggregates.
If your customer is merely using the deaggregates for TE, why would
they need to send the deags with anything but no-export. This
would resolve the issue of having to advertise them to your peers,
while still allowing the customer to have traffic come in whichever
link they chose. The added benefit is that no one else needs to accept
additional routes.
<snip>
