nanog mailing list archives
Re: [c-nsp] Peering + Transit Circuits
From: Nick Hilliard <nick () foobar org>
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 09:59:13 +0100
On 18/08/2015 22:10, William Herrin wrote:
This technique described isn't URPF, it's simple destination routing. The routes I offer you via BGP are the only routes in my table, hence the only routes I'm capable of routing. If you send me a packet for a _destination_ I didn't offer to you, I can't route it.
yep, I hit send too soon. The point I intended to make was that ixp peering in a vrf will only protect you from transit theft, not clandestine peering. If you want to stop third party organisations at an ixp from getting peering by installing static routes, then l2 filters are what you need. Nick
Current thread:
- Re: [c-nsp] Peering + Transit Circuits, (continued)
- Message not available
- Re: [c-nsp] Peering + Transit Circuits Tim Durack (Aug 18)
- Message not available
- Message not available
- Fwd: [c-nsp] Peering + Transit Circuits Tim Durack (Aug 18)
- Re: [c-nsp] Peering + Transit Circuits Tim Durack (Aug 18)
- Re: [c-nsp] Peering + Transit Circuits Mark Tinka (Aug 25)
- Re: Peering + Transit Circuits Patrick W. Gilmore (Aug 18)
- Re: Peering + Transit Circuits Tim Durack (Aug 18)
- Re: [c-nsp] Peering + Transit Circuits Nick Hilliard (Aug 18)
- Message not available
- Re: [c-nsp] Peering + Transit Circuits Nick Hilliard (Aug 18)
- Re: [c-nsp] Peering + Transit Circuits William Herrin (Aug 18)
- Re: [c-nsp] Peering + Transit Circuits Nick Hilliard (Aug 19)
- Re: Peering + Transit Circuits Pshem Kowalczyk (Aug 18)
- Re: Peering + Transit Circuits Faisal Imtiaz (Aug 18)
- Re: Peering + Transit Circuits John Osmon (Aug 18)
- Re: Peering + Transit Circuits Faisal Imtiaz (Aug 18)
- Re: Peering + Transit Circuits Faisal Imtiaz (Aug 18)
- Re: Peering + Transit Circuits Bob Evans (Aug 18)
