nanog mailing list archives
Re: Level 3 BGP Advertisements
From: Andy Davidson <andy () nosignal org>
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 20:39:18 +0100
On 29 Aug 2012, at 20:28, Nick Olsen <nick () flhsi com> wrote:
In practice, We've always advertised our space all the way down to /24's but also the aggregate block (the /20 or the /21). Just so there was still reachability to our network in the event that someone made the foolish mistake of filtering lets say prefixes smaller /23...
Filtering your de-aggregated prefixes in the presence of covering aggregates in this case would certainly not be foolish. :-) Please, unless you really know why you need to do otherwise, just originate your aggregates. Your friends, Every other Autonomous System
Current thread:
- Level 3 BGP Advertisements Nick Olsen (Aug 29)
- Re: Level 3 BGP Advertisements Andy Davidson (Aug 29)
- Re: Level 3 BGP Advertisements Berry Mobley (Aug 29)
- Re: Level 3 BGP Advertisements Jon Lewis (Aug 29)
- Re: Level 3 BGP Advertisements Randy (Aug 29)
- RE: Level 3 BGP Advertisements Hale, William C (Aug 29)
- Re: Level 3 BGP Advertisements William Herrin (Aug 29)
- $10k per BGP prefix? (was Re: Level 3 BGP Advertisements) Jay Ashworth (Aug 29)
- Re: $10k per BGP prefix? (was Re: Level 3 BGP Advertisements) Peter Kristolaitis (Aug 29)
- Re: $10k per BGP prefix? (was Re: Level 3 BGP Advertisements) William Herrin (Aug 29)
- RE: Level 3 BGP Advertisements STARNES, CURTIS (Aug 29)
- Re: Level 3 BGP Advertisements Grzegorz Janoszka (Aug 29)
- $10k per BGP prefix? (was Re: Level 3 BGP Advertisements) Jay Ashworth (Aug 29)
(Thread continues...)
- Re: Level 3 BGP Advertisements Andy Davidson (Aug 29)