nanog mailing list archives
Re: more-specifics via IX
From: John Payne <john () sackheads org>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 08:33:13 -0400
On Oct 15, 2007, at 7:41, Wolfgang Tremmel <wolfgang.tremmel@de- cix.net> wrote:
Am 15.10.2007 um 07:09 schrieb Bradley Urberg Carlson:I have a few customers' customers, who appear at a local IX. Due to the MLPA-like nature of the IX, I hear their prefixes both at the IX and via my own transit customers. I normally use localpref to prefer customer advertisements over peers' advertisements.There is a customer's customer who is advertising more-specifics at the IX (and using a different source AS, to boot). I can think of a couple ways to prevent hearing these, but thought I should ask for suggestions first.you should honor your customers routing policy and simply accept the routes.
Whilst it is nice to accept a downstream of a downstream's routing policy like that I don't think it is your place to say that. The other response asking what the problem is also is a good example of the misunderstanding of problems with the shim6 solution although at a different place in the network. If MY policy is to send all customer traffic through my customer connections, I should be able to do that.
To answer the OP's question I'd be looking at manually filtering the more specifics if they are also sending the aggregates through the IX.
Current thread:
- more-specifics via IX Bradley Urberg Carlson (Oct 14)
- Re: more-specifics via IX Iljitsch van Beijnum (Oct 15)
- Re: more-specifics via IX Stephen Wilcox (Oct 17)
- Re: more-specifics via IX Bradley Urberg Carlson (Oct 17)
- Re: more-specifics via IX Stephen Wilcox (Oct 18)
- Re: more-specifics via IX David Ulevitch (Oct 18)
- Re: more-specifics via IX Stephen Wilcox (Oct 17)
- Re: more-specifics via IX Iljitsch van Beijnum (Oct 15)
- Re: more-specifics via IX John Payne (Oct 15)
- Re: more-specifics via IX Che-Hoo CHENG (Oct 15)
- Re: more-specifics via IX Adrian Chadd (Oct 15)
- Re: more-specifics via IX John Payne (Oct 15)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: more-specifics via IX Andy Davidson (Oct 15)