nanog mailing list archives
Re: engineering --> ddos and flooding
From: Mark Mentovai <mark-list () mentovai com>
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 15:07:26 -0400 (EDT)
Geoff Zinderdine wrote:
Why not just advertise the host route with an unreachable next hop from your main peering session?
Maybe your upstream sets the NEXT_HOP to your side of the point-to-point for you, just in case you neglected to do so. Even if they don't, who's to say what's unreachable? If the NEXT_HOP is truly unreachable, in that there is no route to it, the BGP path won't be marked as valid and won't make it to the IP routing table (Loc-RIB.) I've long felt that IP should have come with a provision for an address that is never routed. It would be great if we could get something like 127.0.0.2 for this very task. Mark
Current thread:
- Re: engineering --> ddos and flooding Dan Foster (Jun 01)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: engineering --> ddos and flooding Jim Shankland (Jun 01)
- Re: engineering --> ddos and flooding Walter Prue (Jun 01)
- Re: engineering --> ddos and flooding lucifer (Jun 01)
- Re: engineering --> ddos and flooding Bill Woodcock (Jun 01)
- Re: engineering --> ddos and flooding Geoff Zinderdine (Jun 01)
- Re: engineering --> ddos and flooding Mark Mentovai (Jun 01)
- Re: engineering --> ddos and flooding Geoff Zinderdine (Jun 01)
- Re: engineering --> ddos and flooding Christopher A. Woodfield (Jun 01)
- Re: engineering --> ddos and flooding Mark Mentovai (Jun 01)
- Re: engineering --> ddos and flooding lucifer (Jun 01)
- Re: engineering --> ddos and flooding Hank Nussbacher (Jun 03)
- Re: engineering --> ddos and flooding Geoff Zinderdine (Jun 04)
- Re: engineering --> ddos and flooding Mark Mentovai (Jun 04)
- Re: engineering --> ddos and flooding Valdis . Kletnieks (Jun 04)