North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Clue's for Clue-less
No proof one way, or the other, Martin.... The only neighbors I lost on this one, dumped something they shouldn't..... If someone de-aggregates a /16, it fires off alarms.... Although these may be valid advertisements, We have opted for the "safe, rather than sorry" perspective. (Besides, the alarms *assure* prompt attention) Running the internet requires a certain degree of Altruism. One should set policies that *protect* the core, rather than one's own....... ;) Doing other than this will result in a global internet that is not reliable...And we all lose. "The good of the many, outweigh the desires of the few" (No matter *how* expensive a tie they wear ;) PS: 11.2.xx and higher have this command... Martin, Christian wrote: > > Richard Irving Wrote: > > To "You Know Who You Are": > > > > Since some of the filtering policies on the core *seem* to > > not benefit the Internet as a whole... (or is that Hole ? ;) > > > > May I suggest one that does: > > > > neighbor WWW.XXX.YYY.ZZZ maximum-prefix XXXXX > > > > It has a way of dropping "clue-nots"..... When > > they demonstrate said title..... > > > > Your clueful attention appreciated. > > > > Signed, > > > > One *URKED* Core Operator. > > > > What if it has a way of dropping big blocks? From what I've seen n > sniffer traces, it depends on how the routes are stored in the BGP table > that determines how they are advertised. This may have the effect of > sinking large, valid netblocks. Unless you've seen otherwise... > > -Chris
|