nanog mailing list archives
Re: Max Prefix Out, was Re: Verizon 701 Route leak?
From: Leo Bicknell <bicknell () ufp org>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 08:24:30 -0700
In a message written on Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 12:50:58PM +0200, J??rg Kost wrote:
What about adding an option to the BGP session that A & B do agree on a fixed number of prefixes in both directions, so Bs prefix-in could be As prefix-out automatically?
As others have pointed out, that's harder to do, but there's a different reason it may not be desireable. If a peer sets a limit to tear down the session with no automatic reset, forcing a call to their NOC to get a human to reset it then it may be advantageous to set your side to tear down at N-1 prefixes. That way you can insure restoration at the speed of your NOC, and not at the speed of your peer's. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell () ufp org PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description:
Current thread:
- Max Prefix Out, was Re: Verizon 701 Route leak? Michael Still (Aug 29)
- Re: Max Prefix Out, was Re: Verizon 701 Route leak? Alejandro Acosta (Aug 30)
- Re: Max Prefix Out, was Re: Verizon 701 Route leak? Jörg Kost (Aug 31)
- Re: Max Prefix Out, was Re: Verizon 701 Route leak? Job Snijders (Aug 31)
- Re: Max Prefix Out, was Re: Verizon 701 Route leak? Jörg Kost (Aug 31)
- Re: Max Prefix Out, was Re: Verizon 701 Route leak? Michael Still (Aug 31)
- Re: Max Prefix Out, was Re: Verizon 701 Route leak? Jörg Kost (Aug 31)
- Re: Max Prefix Out, was Re: Verizon 701 Route leak? Leo Bicknell (Aug 31)
- Re: Max Prefix Out, was Re: Verizon 701 Route leak? Christopher Morrow (Aug 31)
- Re: Max Prefix Out, was Re: Verizon 701 Route leak? Alejandro Acosta (Aug 30)
- Re: Max Prefix Out, was Re: Verizon 701 Route leak? Tassos Chatzithomaoglou (Aug 31)