Re: Clue's for Clue-less

[Richard Irving <rirving () onecall net>]

No proof one way, or the other, Martin....

   The only neighbors I lost on this one, dumped something 
they shouldn't..... If someone de-aggregates a /16,
it fires off alarms.... Although these may be valid advertisements,
We have opted for the "safe, rather than sorry" perspective.
(Besides, the alarms *assure* prompt attention)

   Running the internet requires a certain degree of Altruism.
One should set policies that *protect* the core, rather than one's
own....... ;)

 Doing other than this will result in a global internet
that is not reliable...And we all lose.

   "The good of the many, outweigh the desires of the few"

(No matter *how* expensive a tie they wear ;)

PS: 11.2.xx and higher have this command... 


Martin, Christian wrote:
> Richard Irving Wrote:
> > To "You Know Who You Are":
> >
> > Since some of the filtering policies on the core *seem* to
> > not benefit the Internet as a whole... (or is that Hole ? ;)
> >
> >  May I suggest one that does:
> >
> >  neighbor WWW.XXX.YYY.ZZZ maximum-prefix XXXXX
> >
> >   It has a way of dropping "clue-nots"..... When
> > they demonstrate said title.....
> >
> >  Your clueful attention appreciated.
> >
> > Signed,
> >
> >  One *URKED* Core Operator.
>
> What if it has a way of dropping big blocks?  From what I've seen n
> sniffer traces, it depends on how the routes are stored in the BGP table
> that determines how they are advertised.  This may have the effect of
> sinking large, valid netblocks.  Unless you've seen otherwise...
>
> -Chris