nanog mailing list archives
Re: Route leak in Bangladesh
From: Nick Hilliard <nick () foobar org>
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2015 17:08:01 +0100
On 01/07/2015 17:03, Joe Abley wrote:
The idea of configuring this stuff from the IRR is great in terms of distributing the ops cycles in the right places, but it doesn't help with verifying that the end result isn't insane, as I think you and Mike have described on this list over the past couple of days.
that doesn't invalidate it as being part of a critical mechanism for filtering ebgp. Implemented well, it will catch 99% of problems. maxprefixes with no autorecover catches 75% of the rest. Between these two mechanisms, that's pretty good. Nick
Current thread:
- Re: Route leak in Bangladesh, (continued)
- Re: Route leak in Bangladesh Mark Tinka (Jul 01)
- Re: Route leak in Bangladesh Nick Hilliard (Jul 01)
- Re: Route leak in Bangladesh Mark Tinka (Jul 01)
- Re: Route leak in Bangladesh Nick Hilliard (Jul 01)
- Re: Route leak in Bangladesh Mike Hammett (Jul 01)
- Re: Route leak in Bangladesh Mark Tinka (Jul 01)
- Re: Route leak in Bangladesh Hugo Slabbert (Jul 02)
- Re: Route leak in Bangladesh Mark Tinka (Jul 02)
- Re: Route leak in Bangladesh Jared Mauch (Jul 01)
- Re: Route leak in Bangladesh Joe Abley (Jul 01)
- Re: Route leak in Bangladesh Nick Hilliard (Jul 01)
- Re: Route leak in Bangladesh Nick Hilliard (Jul 01)
- Re: Route leak in Bangladesh Mark Tinka (Jul 01)
- Re: Route leak in Bangladesh Nick Hilliard (Jul 01)
- Re: Route leak in Bangladesh Mark Tinka (Jul 01)