nanog mailing list archives
Re: If I announce 192.0.2.0/24, do I need a discard route? (Looking for a reference…)
From: Warren Kumari <warren () kumari net>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2024 13:46:38 -0800
On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 3:56 PM, William Herrin <bill () herrin us> wrote:
On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 12:30 PM Warren Kumari <warren () kumari net> wrote: So, let's say I'm announcing some address space (e.g 192.0.2.0/24), but I'm only using part of it internally (e.g 192.0.2.0/25). I've always understood that it's best practice[0] to have a discard route (eg static to null0/discard or similar[1]) for what I'm announcing. Hi Warren, Your router won't announce 192.0.2.0/24 unless it knows a route to 192.0.2.0/24 or has been configured to aggregate any internal routes inside 192.0.2.0/24 to 192.0.2.0/24.
It that always true? I'd started off thinking that, but a friend of mine (yes, the same one that started this argument) convinced me that some forms of BGP summarization/aggregation don't always generate a "local" route… I'd also thought that I'd seen this when redistributing an IGP into BGP, and using that as a contributor to 'aggregate-address' on Cisco devices. This is from a long time ago, and really hazy now, but I'd thought that any contributor would cause that the aggregate-address route to be announced, and a local hold down not to be created. It's possible that a: I'm just wrong b: this is not longer true, c: both of the above. There are also some more inventive ways of getting routes into BGP, like using ExaBGP as an example. W 192.0.2.0/25 doesn't count; it needs to know a route to 192.0.2.0/24.
Sending 192.0.2.0/24 to discard guarantees that the router has a route to 192.0.2.0/24. Historically, folks would put 192.0.2.0/24 on the ethernet port. Then, when carrier was lost on the ethernet port for a moment, the router would no longer have a route to 192.0.2.0/24, so it'd withdraw the announcement for 192.0.2.0/24. This is a bad idea for obvious reasons, so best practice was to put a low priority route to discard as a fall-back if the ethernet port briefly lost carrier. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin bill () herrin us https://bill.herrin.us/
Current thread:
- If I announce 192.0.2.0/24, do I need a discard route? (Looking for a reference…) Warren Kumari (Jan 31)
- Re: If I announce 192.0.2.0/24, do I need a discard route? (Looking for a reference…) Owen DeLong via NANOG (Jan 31)
- Re: If I announce 192.0.2.0/24, do I need a discard route? (Looking for a reference…) William Herrin (Jan 31)
- Re: If I announce 192.0.2.0/24, do I need a discard route? (Looking for a reference…) Warren Kumari (Jan 31)
- Re: If I announce 192.0.2.0/24, do I need a discard route? (Looking for a reference…) William Herrin (Jan 31)
- Re: If I announce 192.0.2.0/24, do I need a discard route? (Looking for a reference…) Tom Beecher (Jan 31)
- Re: If I announce 192.0.2.0/24, do I need a discard route? (Looking for a reference…) Warren Kumari (Jan 31)
- Re: If I announce 192.0.2.0/24, do I need a discard route? (Looking for a reference…) Owen DeLong via NANOG (Jan 31)
- Re: If I announce 192.0.2.0/24, do I need a discard route? (Looking for a reference…) Warren Kumari (Jan 31)
- Re: If I announce 192.0.2.0/24, do I need a discard route? (Looking for a reference…) Christopher Hawker (Jan 31)
