nanog mailing list archives
Re: prefix filtering per IRR - practices
From: Chris Rogers <crogers () inerail net>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 11:57:04 -0500
From my experience, networks that are capable of filtering from IRR objects
generally filter for exact routes, meaning no "le 24". While I've always found networks to be set in their ways, I know some people that have managed to get their filters changed to allow longer prefixes without needing additional objects. But ultimately, it does help prevent the leaking of internal routes. -Chris On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 6:55 AM, Frank Habicht <geier () geier ne tz> wrote:
Hi, I have a question regarding what's the most common practice [1] for transit ASs to filter prefixes from their BGP customers when using IRR data. (which of course everyone does...) Would many/most/all/none : a) accept only the prefixes listed in route objects or b) accept these and anything "upto /24" (or "le 24") I was hoping / assuming the latter but I start getting a different impression. Yep, and apart from the current status, the tendency would be of interest. Thanks, Frank [1] after "my network, my rules"
Current thread:
- prefix filtering per IRR - practices Frank Habicht (Nov 22)
- Re: prefix filtering per IRR - practices Chris Rogers (Nov 22)
- Re: prefix filtering per IRR - practices Michael Hallgren (Nov 22)
- Re: prefix filtering per IRR - practices Chris Rogers (Nov 22)