[46431] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Route filters, IRRs, and route objects
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Przemyslaw Karwasiecki)
Thu Mar 28 11:13:04 2002
From: Przemyslaw Karwasiecki <karwas@ifxcorp.com>
To: Stephen Griffin <stephen.griffin@rcn.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <200203280403.XAA30446@elektra.ultra.net>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: 28 Mar 2002 11:05:14 -0500
Message-Id: <1017331514.3818.1258.camel@brick.ifxcorp.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Stephen,
Your comment in 100% accurate insituation when TE obectives
are localized to our AS and customer AS.
Unfortunatelly in some circumstances, (very common in our case)
90% of traffic is actually just merely transited via our AS,
and customer needs to have a global visibility of deaggreagated
prefixes.
Przemek
On Wed, 2002-03-27 at 23:03, Stephen Griffin wrote:
>
> 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>
>
