nanog mailing list archives
Re: ULA BoF
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch () muada com>
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2007 17:05:50 +0200
On 2-jun-2007, at 1:27, Fred Baker wrote:
But ULAs *do* require router magic. They require a policy to be in place that causes them to not be advertised unless the policy is overridden, and a policy that doesn't believe them even if they are mistakenly advertised.
Well, there is no such thing as an out-of-the-box BGP configuration, so that's to be expected.
Although ISPs tend to let packets with RFC 1918 source addresses slip out from time to time, they're actually pretty good at rejecting RFC 1918 routes: currently, route-views.oregon-ix.net doesn't have the 10.0.0.0, 172.16.0.0 or 192.168.0.0 networks in its BGP table (there are two entries for 192.0.2.0, though). So in IPv4 the magic is of sufficiently quality.
Current thread:
- Re: ULA BoF Randy Bush (Jun 01)
- Re: ULA BoF Owen DeLong (Jun 01)
- Re: ULA BoF Iljitsch van Beijnum (Jun 01)
- Re: ULA BoF Steve Feldman (Jun 01)
- Re: ULA BoF Randy Bush (Jun 01)
- Re: ULA BoF Iljitsch van Beijnum (Jun 01)
- Re: ULA BoF Steve Feldman (Jun 01)
- Re: ULA BoF Joel Jaeggli (Jun 01)
- Re: ULA BoF Iljitsch van Beijnum (Jun 01)
- Re: ULA BoF Fred Baker (Jun 01)
- Re: ULA BoF Iljitsch van Beijnum (Jun 02)
- Re: ULA BoF Paul Vixie (Jun 02)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- RE: ULA BoF Azinger, Marla (Jun 01)