Max Prefixes Configured on Customer BGP (WAS Re: ALGX problems?)

[Joe Wood <joew () accretive-networks net>]

On Thu, 15 Aug 2002, Chris Parker wrote:

> Well, it was one of ALGX downstreams leaking to them.  Shame on them
> for not filtering their customer properly.  How many times do we have
> to learn this lesson?

As much as it would be nice if everyone used prefix-lists on their
customer BGP sessions, but sometimes this is not possible, or cumbersome.
I know from past experience as a transit customer, that I have personally
shyed away from ISP's that have restricted me to having their NOC update
my ACL.

However, I don't really see a reason why ISP's shouldn't implement
max-prefixes on their customer sessions; This would not prevent against
very small prefix leaks, but would prevent partial and whole routing table
leaks that impact many networks.

How many of you that currently do not filter your customer BGP sessions
have max-prefixes configured?

How many of you that currently do not filter your customer BGP sessions
and do NOT have max-prefixes configured would be willing to configure the
sessions to support this?

Joe