nanog mailing list archives
Re: RIR filtering & Level3
From: Justin Shore <justin () justinshore com>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 10:13:38 -0600
Just to followup with the list, there was a small omission in the filtering of the routes on our peering session. That accounts for the more specific routes we were seeing. L3 made the filtering change on their side and we're back down to within a percent or less of our other BGP peers. It wasn't hurting us; our hardware isn't up against any resource limits; I just happened to notice it and thought I'd take the opportunity to inquire about RIR filtering with the group. Thanks for the quick work on this one, Roy and Kevin.
I am still interested in implementing some minimum allocation filtering on our borders. I can't think of any reason to accept anything below the minimum of a /24. Can anyone else? None of the DNS root servers are on anything smaller than a /24 are they? Does anyone have any suggestions for implementing this in a sane manner? I'm assuming matching 0.0.0.0/0 ge 24 would be sufficient unless there are some exceptions like perhaps the root servers.
Thanks Justin Justin Shore wrote:
Are any other L3 customers seeing the large number of /25 and smaller routes from L3?
Current thread:
- RIR filtering & Level3 Justin Shore (Nov 14)
- RE: RIR filtering & Level3 Paul Stewart (Nov 14)
- MXLogic Mail Admins Raymond L. Corbin (Nov 15)
- Re: MXLogic Mail Admins Martin Hannigan (Nov 15)
- MXLogic Mail Admins Raymond L. Corbin (Nov 15)
- Re: RIR filtering & Level3 Pete Templin (Nov 15)
- Re: RIR filtering & Level3 Jon Lewis (Nov 15)
- Re: RIR filtering & Level3 Kevin Epperson (Nov 15)
- Re: RIR filtering & Level3 Jon Lewis (Nov 15)
- RE: RIR filtering & Level3 Eric Van Tol (Nov 15)
- Re: RIR filtering & Level3 Justin Shore (Nov 15)
- RE: RIR filtering & Level3 Paul Stewart (Nov 14)