nanog mailing list archives
Re: [doable?] peer filtering (was Re: Trusting BGP sessions)
From: Sean Donelan <sean () donelan com>
Date: 15 Nov 2000 14:05:19 -0800
On Wed, 15 November 2000, john heasley wrote:
great, that must be why these problems dont occur. which solution are you using? i'm not flinging s*!@ over the fence; i'm truely interested.
If the problem is truely no router vendor make a router capable of holding a fully filtered route table we need to tell the router vendors this is a mandatory requirement or we won't buy their routers. Remember, once upon a time when no router could handle more than 30,000 routes or 64,000 routes. Once the router vendors were told what was needed, they built a box to meet that need. It is not a given that no router will never support filtering a full tier-1 ISP's route table. Its just no one has made it a requirement. Lets make it a requirement of the router vendors.
Current thread:
- Re: [doable?] peer filtering (was Re: Trusting BGP sessions) Sean Donelan (Nov 15)
- Re: [doable?] peer filtering (was Re: Trusting BGP sessions) john heasley (Nov 15)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: [doable?] peer filtering (was Re: Trusting BGP sessions) Sean Donelan (Nov 15)
- Re: [doable?] peer filtering (was Re: Trusting BGP sessions) john heasley (Nov 15)
- Re: [doable?] peer filtering (was Re: Trusting BGP sessions) Bora Akyol (Nov 15)
- Re: [doable?] peer filtering (was Re: Trusting BGP sessions) Sean Donelan (Nov 15)
- Re: [doable?] peer filtering (was Re: Trusting BGP sessions) Kurt Kayser (Nov 16)
- Re: [doable?] peer filtering (was Re: Trusting BGP sessions) John Fraizer (Nov 16)
- Re: [doable?] peer filtering (was Re: Trusting BGP sessions) Kurt Kayser (Nov 16)
- Re: [doable?] peer filtering (was Re: Trusting BGP sessions) John Fraizer (Nov 16)
- Re: [doable?] peer filtering (was Re: Trusting BGP sessions) Kurt Kayser (Nov 16)