Home page logo

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: weird BGP cisco-ism? [problem resolved]
From: Chris Garner <cgarner () sni net>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 1997 18:19:24 -0600 (MDT)

     I'd think prefix based filters would be more likely to be correct.
Since you have to explicitly list what you think you should be announcing
you protect against having routes you don't expect in your tables and
against having interactions that cause unexpected routes to get tagged as

OK, so then what do you do with BGP customers?  Ideally, you'd be filtering 
the ingress advertisements from your customers.  Now you have to add those 
prefixes to your egress filters as well.

Using communities to accomplish this is much more efficient and "hands-off".


        You can build your customer BGP filters off data in the IRR.  Make
it a requirement that BGP customers must keep that information up to date
(or do it for them).


                                -Chris (cgarner () sni net)

  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]