nanog mailing list archives
Re: Filter on IXP
From: Nick Hilliard <nick () foobar org>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 16:52:58 +0000
On 28/02/2014 15:42, Jérôme Nicolle wrote:
Instead, IXPs _could_ enforce BCP38 too. Mapping the route-server's received routes to ingress _and_ egress ACLs on IXP ports would mitigate the role of BCP38 offenders within member ports. It's almost like uRPF in an intelligent and useable form.
this will break horribly as soon as you have an IXP member which provides transit to other multihomed networks. Nick
Current thread:
- Re: Filter NTP traffic by packet size?, (continued)
- Re: Filter NTP traffic by packet size? Robert Drake (Feb 26)
- Re: Filter NTP traffic by packet size? Keegan Holley (Feb 27)
- Re: Filter NTP traffic by packet size? Jimmy Hess (Feb 26)
- Re: Filter NTP traffic by packet size? Robert Drake (Feb 26)
- Re: Filter NTP traffic by packet size? Cb B (Feb 25)
- Re: Filter on IXP Jérôme Nicolle (Feb 28)
- Re: Filter on IXP Jay Ashworth (Feb 28)
- Re: Filter on IXP Jérôme Nicolle (Feb 28)
- Re: Filter on IXP Randy Bush (Feb 28)
- Re: Filter on IXP Jérôme Nicolle (Feb 28)
- Re: Filter on IXP Nick Hilliard (Feb 28)
- Re: Filter on IXP Patrick W. Gilmore (Feb 28)
- Re: Filter on IXP Jérôme Nicolle (Feb 28)
- Re: Filter NTP traffic by packet size? Saku Ytti (Feb 22)
- Re: Filter NTP traffic by packet size? James R Cutler (Feb 20)
- Re: Filter NTP traffic by packet size? Dobbins, Roland (Feb 20)
- Re: Filter NTP traffic by packet size? Dobbins, Roland (Feb 20)
- Re: Filter NTP traffic by packet size? Harlan Stenn (Feb 21)