nanog mailing list archives
Re: Route leak in Bangladesh
From: Mark Tinka <mark.tinka () seacom mu>
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 16:38:48 +0200
On 30/Jun/15 16:24, Job Snijders wrote:
In this specific situation, for a small to medium sized network, it might be prudent to apply an outbound prefix-filter on all transit & peering sessions and thus only allowing prefixes which actually belong to downstream customers and the network itself.
I say that regardless of size, deploy the ultimate solution as the network is only bound to grow. It's harder for folk to undo old habits as they become more entrenched. Mark.
Current thread:
- Re: NTT->HE earlier today (~10am EDT), (continued)
- Re: NTT->HE earlier today (~10am EDT) Randy Bush (Jun 30)
- Re: NTT->HE earlier today (~10am EDT) Job Snijders (Jun 30)
- Re: Route leak in Bangladesh Matsuzaki Yoshinobu (Jun 30)
- Re: Route leak in Bangladesh Randy Bush (Jun 30)
- Re: Route leak in Bangladesh Matsuzaki Yoshinobu (Jun 30)
- Re: Route leak in Bangladesh Mark Tinka (Jun 30)
- Re: Route leak in Bangladesh Nick Hilliard (Jun 30)
- Re: Route leak in Bangladesh Job Snijders (Jun 30)
- Re: Route leak in Bangladesh Joe Abley (Jun 30)
- Re: Route leak in Bangladesh Job Snijders (Jun 30)
- Re: Route leak in Bangladesh Mark Tinka (Jun 30)
- Re: Route leak in Bangladesh Job Snijders (Jun 30)
- Re: Route leak in Bangladesh Randy Bush (Jun 30)
- Re: Route leak in Bangladesh Sandra Murphy (Jun 30)
- Re: Route leak in Bangladesh Justin M. Streiner (Jun 30)
- Re: Route leak in Bangladesh Sandra Murphy (Jun 30)
- Re: Route leak in Bangladesh Job Snijders (Jun 30)
- Re: Route leak in Bangladesh Graham Beneke (Jun 30)
- Re: Route leak in Bangladesh Justin M. Streiner (Jun 30)