Re: Max Prefix Out, was Re: Verizon 701 Route leak?

[Alejandro Acosta <alejandroacostaalamo () gmail com>]

What a terrific idea..., simple & useful


El 29/8/17 a las 1:41 p.m., Michael Still escribió:
> I agree a max-prefix outbound could potentially be useful and would
> hopefully not be too terribly difficult to implement for most vendors.
>
> Perhaps RFC4486 would need to be updated to reflect this as a
> possibility as well?
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 5:41 PM, Julien Goodwin <nanog () studio442 com au> wrote:
> > On 28/08/17 18:34, Job Snijders wrote:
> > > Finally, it may be worthwhile exploring if we can standardize and
> > > promote maximum prefix limits applied on the the _sending_ side. This
> > > way you protect your neighbor (and the Internet at large) by
> > > self-destructing when you inadvertently announce more than what you'd
> > > expect to announce. BIRD has this functionality
> > > http://bird.network.cz/?get_doc&f=bird-3.html#proto-export-limit
> > > however I am not aware of other implementations. Feedback welcome!
> > Having just dug up the reference for some strange reason...
> >
> > Back at NANOG38 (2006) Tom Scholl mentioned in a talk on max prefix:
> > "Perhaps maximum-prefix outbound?
> > (Suggested by Eric Bell years ago)"
> > https://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog38/presentations/scholl-maxpfx.pdf
> >
> > Notably Juniper does now have prefix-export-limit, but only for
> > readvertisement into IS-IS or OSPF:
> > https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/reference/configuration-statement/prefix-export-limit-edit-protocols-isis.html