nanog mailing list archives
Re: Max Prefixes Configured on Customer BGP
From: Niels Bakker <niels=nanog () bakker net>
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 03:30:24 +0200
* ras () e-gerbil net (Richard A Steenbergen) [Fri 16 Aug 2002, 03:01 CEST]: [..]
IMHO AS Path filters are useless and redundant if you have proper prefix-lists.
Did you ever run into that bug in IOS where if you had `ip as-path access-list 1 permit ^(1|2|3)+_$' (where 2 and 3 would be customers of AS1 who is one of your peers), and the third number is higher than the second number? IOS seemed to optimise that case out and reject AS paths of ^1_2$ if the filter was written as ^(1|3|2)+_$. This was several years ago though. -- Niels.
Current thread:
- Re: Max Prefixes Configured on Customer BGP, (continued)
- Re: Max Prefixes Configured on Customer BGP Richard A Steenbergen (Aug 15)
- Re: Max Prefixes Configured on Customer BGP Joe Wood (Aug 15)
- Re: Max Prefixes Configured on Customer BGP Jared Mauch (Aug 15)
- HPOV, Ciscoworks Blake Fithen (Aug 15)
- Re: Max Prefixes Configured on Customer BGP Leo Bicknell (Aug 16)
- Re: Max Prefixes Configured on Customer BGP Chris Woodfield (Aug 16)
- Re: Max Prefixes Configured on Customer BGP (WAS Re: ALGX problems?) Joe Wood (Aug 15)
- Re: Max Prefixes Configured on Customer BGP (WAS Re: ALGX problems?) Mark Kent (Aug 15)
- Re: Max Prefixes Configured on Customer BGP (WAS Re: ALGX problems?) Joe Wood (Aug 15)