nanog mailing list archives
Re: Max Prefix Out, was Re: Verizon 701 Route leak?
From: "Jörg Kost" <jk () ip-clear de>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 12:50:58 +0200
Hi,but isn't peer A prefix-out a synonym for peer B prefix-in, that will lead to the same result, e.g. a BGP teardown?
I just feel that this will add another factor, that people will not use or abuse: neigh $x max-out infinite
What about adding an option to the BGP session that A & B do agree on a fixed number of prefixes in both directions, so Bs prefix-in could be As prefix-out automatically?
Jörg On 31 Aug 2017, at 7:01, Alejandro Acosta wrote:
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 wouldhopefully 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?
Current thread:
- Max Prefix Out, was Re: Verizon 701 Route leak? Michael Still (Aug 29)
- Re: Max Prefix Out, was Re: Verizon 701 Route leak? Alejandro Acosta (Aug 30)
- Re: Max Prefix Out, was Re: Verizon 701 Route leak? Jörg Kost (Aug 31)
- Re: Max Prefix Out, was Re: Verizon 701 Route leak? Job Snijders (Aug 31)
- Re: Max Prefix Out, was Re: Verizon 701 Route leak? Jörg Kost (Aug 31)
- Re: Max Prefix Out, was Re: Verizon 701 Route leak? Michael Still (Aug 31)
- Re: Max Prefix Out, was Re: Verizon 701 Route leak? Jörg Kost (Aug 31)
- Re: Max Prefix Out, was Re: Verizon 701 Route leak? Leo Bicknell (Aug 31)
- Re: Max Prefix Out, was Re: Verizon 701 Route leak? Christopher Morrow (Aug 31)
- Re: Max Prefix Out, was Re: Verizon 701 Route leak? Alejandro Acosta (Aug 30)
- Re: Max Prefix Out, was Re: Verizon 701 Route leak? Tassos Chatzithomaoglou (Aug 31)