RE: Filtering Best Practices, et al (Was Verio Peering, Gordon's Knot)

["Hallgren, Michael" <michael.hallgren () Teleglobe com>]

Hi,


we - Teleglobe, that is - filter our customers wrt. as-path and prefix...
also in the RIPE area. If a customer isn't up-to-date with IRR, we
advice/help him to become so. (The idea is, keeping filters on our customers
is also of benefit to our peers, etc, etc.)

mh

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Stephane Bortzmeyer [mailto:bortzmeyer () gitoyen net]
> Envoyé : mercredi 10 octobre 2001 10:54
> À : Grant A. Kirkwood
> Cc : nanog () merit edu
> Objet : Re: Filtering Best Practices, et al (Was Verio 
> Peering, Gordon's
> Knot)
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 09, 2001 at 07:58:19AM -0700,
>  Grant A. Kirkwood <grant () virtical net> wrote 
>  a message of 18 lines which said:
>
> > I'm currently in the process of setting up a new border 
> router, and the
> > recent debate on the above topic got me wondering what the 
> best practice
> > filtering policy is? Is there one?
>
> I'm interested to see if people filter route anouncements on the basis
> of registered routes in an Internet Routing Registry. In our area
> (Europe), the RIPE database typically contains less than half of the
> routes which are actually announced. I assume it is not better in
> ARINland.
>
> On the basis of inetnum objects (network addresses, not routes), it is
> a bit better in coverage but you cannot use inetnum directly in a
> comparison, you have to check that a BGP announce *includes* at least
> one registered inetnum.
>
> To summary, I dropped the idea. Does anyone implemented it?
>