nanog mailing list archives
Re: [c-nsp] Peering + Transit Circuits
From: Nick Hilliard <nick () foobar org>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 21:43:47 +0100
On 18/08/2015 20:22, Tim Durack wrote:
This has always been my understanding - thanks for confirming. I'm weighing cost-benefit, and looking to see if there are any other smart ideas. As usual, it looks like simplest is best.
i'd advise being careful with this approach: urpf at ixps is a nightmare. If you're concerned about transit / peering theft on a shared l2 ixp style fabric, you're far better to use bilateral-only peering with ingress l2 filters at the ixp interface to include or exclude other participants as required. This will stop the problem dead in the water with no side effects. Nick
Current thread:
- Re: [c-nsp] Peering + Transit Circuits, (continued)
- Message not available
- Re: [c-nsp] Peering + Transit Circuits Tim Durack (Aug 18)
- Re: [c-nsp] Peering + Transit Circuits Mark Tinka (Aug 25)
- Message not available
- Message not available
- Re: [c-nsp] Peering + Transit Circuits Tim Durack (Aug 18)
- Message not available
- Re: [c-nsp] Peering + Transit Circuits Tim Durack (Aug 18)
- Message not available
- Message not available
- Fwd: [c-nsp] Peering + Transit Circuits Tim Durack (Aug 18)
- Message not available
- Re: [c-nsp] Peering + Transit Circuits Tim Durack (Aug 18)
- Re: [c-nsp] Peering + Transit Circuits Mark Tinka (Aug 25)
- Re: Peering + Transit Circuits Patrick W. Gilmore (Aug 18)
- Re: Peering + Transit Circuits Tim Durack (Aug 18)
- Re: [c-nsp] Peering + Transit Circuits Nick Hilliard (Aug 18)
- Message not available
- Re: [c-nsp] Peering + Transit Circuits Nick Hilliard (Aug 18)
- Re: [c-nsp] Peering + Transit Circuits William Herrin (Aug 18)
- Re: [c-nsp] Peering + Transit Circuits Nick Hilliard (Aug 19)
- Re: Peering + Transit Circuits Pshem Kowalczyk (Aug 18)
- Re: Peering + Transit Circuits Faisal Imtiaz (Aug 18)
- Re: Peering + Transit Circuits John Osmon (Aug 18)
- Re: Peering + Transit Circuits Faisal Imtiaz (Aug 18)