Re: Route leak in Bangladesh

[Mark Tinka <mark.tinka () seacom mu>]

On 1/Jul/15 16:54, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> you probably want to ignore more rpsl constructs and depend solely on
> as-sets, aut-nums and route/route6 objects.  RPSL is not going to live up
> to your expectations.

Honestly, I'm ambivalent about using the IRR data for prefix-list
generation (even without RPSL), also because of how much junk there is
in there, and also how redundant some of it really is, e.g., someone
creating a /32 (IPv4) route object and yet we only accept up to a /24
(IPv4) on the actual eBGP session, e.t.c.

What I'm more focused is how we can continue to scale our current
system, which is much more strict, focuses on deploying customer
aggregates + le 24 & le 128, instead of enumerating all possible
de-aggregates that have been registered in the IRR (helps keep the
configuration file small and manageable, without sacrificing
reachability). And then see how we can add RPKI into the mix to make
things even simpler, if at all.

Mark.