nanog mailing list archives
Re: Route filters, IRRs, and route objects
From: Stephen Griffin <stephen.griffin () rcn com>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 23:03:53 -0500 (EST)
In the referenced message, Przemyslaw Karwasiecki said:
Hello, I would like to ask you for an advice in regards to "proxy registering" of customer route objects in IRR. What is the best current practice in a situation, when your customers want to advertise to you several /18 or /19 but they also have a requirement to be able to advertise some deaggregated routes on top of aggregates.
If your customer is merely using the deaggregates for TE, why would they need to send the deags with anything but no-export. This would resolve the issue of having to advertise them to your peers, while still allowing the customer to have traffic come in whichever link they chose. The added benefit is that no one else needs to accept additional routes. <snip>
Current thread:
- Route filters, IRRs, and route objects Przemyslaw Karwasiecki (Mar 27)
- Re: Route filters, IRRs, and route objects Jake Khuon (Mar 27)
- Message not available
- Re: Route filters, IRRs, and route objects Przemyslaw Karwasiecki (Mar 27)
- Re: Route filters, IRRs, and route objects Mark Kent (Mar 27)
- Re: Route filters, IRRs, and route objects Przemyslaw Karwasiecki (Mar 27)
- Re: Route filters, IRRs, and route objects Stephen Griffin (Mar 27)
- Re: Route filters, IRRs, and route objects Przemyslaw Karwasiecki (Mar 28)
- Re: Route filters, IRRs, and route objects Mark Prior (Mar 28)