nanog mailing list archives
Inbound prefix filters
From: "John A. Tamplin" <jat () traveller com>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 11:36:11 -0600 (CST)
On Tue, 11 Nov 1997, Phil Howard wrote:
Sean M. Doran writes... [re: inbound filtering]Sprintlink did at one point. It's a really good idea to do this in general because it mitigates the disconnectivity customers assigned prefixes out of one's address blocks will suffer if and when someone accidentally(?) announces subnet of those blocks.Good point.
Actually, I view it the other way. If someone is announcing routes for one of our prefixes, connectivity is at least partially broken for that prefix, and I want to know about it sooner rather than later. If I see an advertisement for that route in our router, I can tell quickly who I need to call. BTW, this has happened to us twice, and both times the offender was a direct competitor in one of our local markets. Does anybody have any feel for how often these "accidents" are not accidents? John Tamplin Traveller Information Services jat () Traveller COM 2104 West Ferry Way 205/883-4233x7007 Huntsville, AL 35801
Current thread:
- /19 addresses and redundancy Steve Camas (Nov 05)
- Re: /19 addresses and redundancy Jay Stewart (Nov 05)
- Re: /19 addresses and redundancy Phil Howard (Nov 05)
- Re: /19 addresses and redundancy Sean M. Doran (Nov 11)
- Re: /19 addresses and redundancy Phil Howard (Nov 11)
- Inbound prefix filters John A. Tamplin (Nov 11)
- Re: /19 addresses and redundancy Jeremy Porter (Nov 11)
- Re: /19 addresses and redundancy Sean M. Doran (Nov 11)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: /19 addresses and redundancy Al Roethlisberger (Nov 05)
- Re: /19 addresses and redundancy Harold Willison (Nov 06)