|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical RE: Filtering Best Practices, et al (Was Verio Peering, Gordon's Knot)
Hi, we - Teleglobe, that is - filter our customers wrt. as-path and prefix... also in the RIPE area. If a customer isn't up-to-date with IRR, we advice/help him to become so. (The idea is, keeping filters on our customers is also of benefit to our peers, etc, etc.) mh > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Stephane Bortzmeyer [mailto:[email protected]] > Envoy� : mercredi 10 octobre 2001 10:54 > � : Grant A. Kirkwood > Cc : [email protected] > Objet : Re: Filtering Best Practices, et al (Was Verio > Peering, Gordon's > Knot) > > > > On Tue, Oct 09, 2001 at 07:58:19AM -0700, > Grant A. Kirkwood <[email protected]> wrote > a message of 18 lines which said: > > > I'm currently in the process of setting up a new border > router, and the > > recent debate on the above topic got me wondering what the > best practice > > filtering policy is? Is there one? > > I'm interested to see if people filter route anouncements on the basis > of registered routes in an Internet Routing Registry. In our area > (Europe), the RIPE database typically contains less than half of the > routes which are actually announced. I assume it is not better in > ARINland. > > On the basis of inetnum objects (network addresses, not routes), it is > a bit better in coverage but you cannot use inetnum directly in a > comparison, you have to check that a BGP announce *includes* at least > one registered inetnum. > > To summary, I dropped the idea. Does anyone implemented it? > > >
|