Re: Route filters, IRRs, and route objects

[Przemyslaw Karwasiecki <karwas () ifxcorp com>]

Stephen,

Your comment in 100% accurate insituation when TE obectives
are localized to our AS and customer AS.

Unfortunatelly in some circumstances, (very common in our case)
90% of traffic is actually just merely transited via our AS,
and customer needs to have a global visibility of deaggreagated 
prefixes.

Przemek

On Wed, 2002-03-27 at 23:03, Stephen Griffin wrote:
> In the referenced message, Przemyslaw Karwasiecki said:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I would like to ask you for an advice in regards to 
> > "proxy registering" of customer route objects in IRR.
> >
> > What is the best current practice in a situation, 
> > when your customers want to advertise to you several
> > /18 or /19 but they also have a requirement to be able
> > to advertise some deaggregated routes on top of aggregates.
>
> If your customer is merely using the deaggregates for TE, why would
> they need to send the deags with anything but no-export. This
> would resolve the issue of having to advertise them to your peers,
> while still allowing the customer to have traffic come in whichever
> link they chose. The added benefit is that no one else needs to accept
> additional routes.
>
> <snip>