Re: [doable?] peer filtering (was Re: Trusting BGP sessions)

[Sean Donelan <sean () donelan com>]

No I'm not suggesting basing it on what a provider is currently 
advertising.  But rather on what the provider has registered and
is authorized to announce.  The set of authorized routes may be
the same or a superset of what the routes the provider is currently
announcing.

If you want asymetric routes, you can register and authorize traffic
via either route; and then dynamically announce which route you want
to use moment to moment.

On Wed, 15 November 2000, "Bora Akyol" wrote:
> If I understand you correctly, you want to filter inbound traffic from a
> service provider to another based on what that service provider is
> advertising and based on the decision process that we run.
>
> How do you suggest we handle asymmetric routes?
>
> Bora
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Sean Donelan" <sean () donelan com>
> To: <heas () shrubbery net>
> Cc: <nanog () merit edu>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2000 2:05 PM
> Subject: Re: [doable?] peer filtering (was Re: Trusting BGP sessions)
>
>
> > On Wed, 15 November 2000, john heasley wrote:
> > > great, that must be why these problems dont occur.  which solution are
> > > you using?  i'm not flinging s*!@ over the fence; i'm truely interested.
> >
> >
> > If the problem is truely no router vendor make a router capable of
> > holding a fully filtered route table we need to tell the router vendors
> > this is a mandatory requirement or we won't buy their routers.  Remember,
> > once upon a time when no router could handle more than 30,000 routes or
> > 64,000 routes.  Once the router vendors were told what was needed, they
> > built a box to meet that need.
> >
> > It is not a given that no router will never support filtering a full
> > tier-1 ISP's route table.  Its just no one has made it a requirement.
> >
> > Lets make it a requirement of the router vendors.