nanog mailing list archives
Re: Filter on IXP
From: Jérôme Nicolle <jerome () ceriz fr>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 18:03:01 +0100
Le 28/02/2014 17:52, Nick Hilliard a écrit :
this will break horribly as soon as you have an IXP member which provides transit to other multihomed networks.
It could break if filters are based on announced prefixes. That's preciselly why uRPF is often useless. On the other hand, if a member provides transit, he will add its customer prefixes to RaDB / RIPEdb with appropriate route objects and the ACL will be updated accordingly. Shouldn't break there. -- Jérôme Nicolle +33 6 19 31 27 14
Current thread:
- Re: Filter NTP traffic by packet size?, (continued)
- Re: Filter NTP traffic by packet size? Jimmy Hess (Feb 26)
- Re: Filter NTP traffic by packet size? Robert Drake (Feb 26)
- Re: Filter NTP traffic by packet size? Cb B (Feb 25)
- Re: Filter on IXP Jérôme Nicolle (Feb 28)
- Re: Filter on IXP Jay Ashworth (Feb 28)
- Re: Filter on IXP Jérôme Nicolle (Feb 28)
- Re: Filter on IXP Randy Bush (Feb 28)
- Re: Filter on IXP Jérôme Nicolle (Feb 28)
- Re: Filter on IXP Nick Hilliard (Feb 28)
- Re: Filter on IXP Patrick W. Gilmore (Feb 28)
- Re: Filter on IXP Jérôme Nicolle (Feb 28)
- Re: Filter NTP traffic by packet size? Saku Ytti (Feb 22)
- Re: Filter NTP traffic by packet size? James R Cutler (Feb 20)
- Re: Filter NTP traffic by packet size? Dobbins, Roland (Feb 20)
- Re: Filter NTP traffic by packet size? Dobbins, Roland (Feb 20)
- Re: Filter NTP traffic by packet size? Harlan Stenn (Feb 21)
- Re: Filter NTP traffic by packet size? Dobbins, Roland (Feb 20)