[74064] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Provider/NAP filtering policies
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (JDeane@sungardfutures.com)
Mon Sep 13 13:56:59 2004
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 12:53:57 -0500
From: <JDeane@sungardfutures.com>
To: <woody@pch.net>
Cc: <nanog@merit.edu>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
My apologies, allow me to make a clarification. When I mentioned NAPs,
I was referring more to provider peering policies _AT_ a NAP, rather
than a NAP's peering policies which of course as you pointed out would
be moot.
Being relegated to closed enterprise environments for the past few
years, I'm trying to play catch-up and validate my previous assumption
that most providers filter at a /19 boundary, etc.
Regards,
Jade
-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Woodcock [mailto:woody@pch.net]=20
Sent: Monday, September 13, 2004 12:42 PM
To: Deane, Jade
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: Provider/NAP filtering policies
On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 JDeane@sungardfutures.com wrote:
> I was hoping someone could point me in the direction of
provider/NAP
> prefix filtering policies. Most important to me is UU and Cogent,
but a
> concise listing of notables would be much appreciated.
Just to clarify, NAPs or Internet exchanges are typically (like more
than 99% of the time) layer-2 services, which don't pay attention to or
care about layer-3 things like IP prefixes. A few have policies
regarding what participants should filter on their own behalf, but of
the four hundered odd exchanges currently operating out there, I don't
know of any which filter prefixes themselves.
Virtually all _providers_ over a certain size filter heavily, of course,
and that's probably the portion of your question you'll get more (and
more
useful) answers to.
-Bill
