nanog mailing list archives
RE: BGP prefix filter list
From: Phil Lavin <phil.lavin () cloudcall com>
Date: Wed, 15 May 2019 13:58:23 +0000
We're an eyeball network. We accept default routes from our transit providers so in theory there should be no impact on reachability.
I'm pretty concerned about things that I don't know due to inefficient routing, e.g. customers hitting a public anycast DNS server in the wrong location resulting in Geolocation issues.
Ah! Understood. The default route(s) was the bit I missed. Makes a lot of sense if you can't justify buying new routers. Have you seen issues with Anycast routing thus far? One would assume that routing would still be fairly efficient unless you're picking up transit from non-local providers over extended L2 links.
Current thread:
- BGP prefix filter list Baldur Norddahl (May 15)
- Re: BGP prefix filter list Anderson, Charles R (May 15)
- Re: BGP prefix filter list Martin Hannigan (May 20)
- Re: BGP prefix filter list Dan White (May 15)
- RE: BGP prefix filter list Phil Lavin (May 15)
- Re: BGP prefix filter list Dan White (May 15)
- RE: BGP prefix filter list Phil Lavin (May 15)
- Re: BGP prefix filter list Dan White (May 15)
- Re: BGP prefix filter list Ca By (May 15)
- Re: BGP prefix filter list Mike Hammett (May 15)
- Re: BGP prefix filter list Ca By (May 15)
- Re: BGP prefix filter list Mike Hammett (May 15)
- Re: BGP prefix filter list Blake Hudson (May 16)
- Re: BGP prefix filter list Radu-Adrian Feurdean (May 17)
- Re: BGP prefix filter list Blake Hudson (May 17)
- Re: BGP prefix filter list / BGP hijacks, different type Denys Fedoryshchenko (May 17)
- Re: BGP prefix filter list / BGP hijacks, different type Christopher Morrow (May 17)
- RE: BGP prefix filter list Phil Lavin (May 15)
- Re: BGP prefix filter list Anderson, Charles R (May 15)