|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: [doable?] peer filtering (was Re: Trusting BGP sessions)
No I'm not suggesting basing it on what a provider is currently advertising. But rather on what the provider has registered and is authorized to announce. The set of authorized routes may be the same or a superset of what the routes the provider is currently announcing. If you want asymetric routes, you can register and authorize traffic via either route; and then dynamically announce which route you want to use moment to moment. On Wed, 15 November 2000, "Bora Akyol" wrote: > If I understand you correctly, you want to filter inbound traffic from a > service provider to another based on what that service provider is > advertising and based on the decision process that we run. > > How do you suggest we handle asymmetric routes? > > Bora > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sean Donelan" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Cc: <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2000 2:05 PM > Subject: Re: [doable?] peer filtering (was Re: Trusting BGP sessions) > > > > > > On Wed, 15 November 2000, john heasley wrote: > > > > > > great, that must be why these problems dont occur. which solution are > > > you using? i'm not flinging s*[email protected] over the fence; i'm truely interested. > > > > > > If the problem is truely no router vendor make a router capable of > > holding a fully filtered route table we need to tell the router vendors > > this is a mandatory requirement or we won't buy their routers. Remember, > > once upon a time when no router could handle more than 30,000 routes or > > 64,000 routes. Once the router vendors were told what was needed, they > > built a box to meet that need. > > > > It is not a given that no router will never support filtering a full > > tier-1 ISP's route table. Its just no one has made it a requirement. > > > > Lets make it a requirement of the router vendors. > > > > > >
|