North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: AS 701 local-pref answer.

  • From: Jake Khuon
  • Date: Mon Dec 17 03:44:06 2001
  • Action:
  • Dcc:
  • Expires:

### On Mon, 17 Dec 2001 02:09:22 -0600, Alan Hannan <[email protected]>
### casually decided to expound upon [email protected] the following thoughts
### about "Re: AS 701 local-pref answer.":

AH> > Do they expect consistent route annoucements from their peers?
AH> > 
AH> > Many networks out there insist upon this as a requirement when peering.
AH>   While many networks insist on this as a requirement when peering,
AH>   few folks audit it, and fewer still take action as a result of
AH>   noticing inconsistent announcements.

A while back, networks peering with the RSng route servers had access to the
PAIR reports which listed inconsistant and unregistered or policy-violated
(as per the IRR) routing anniouncements.  Quite a few people claimed they
used PAIR to clean up their announcements and their registry objects.  I
don't know if there were any agreement ramifications however.

AH>   Bottom line, this inconsistency issue is not significant.

Agreed... even with strict policy checking.  Amongst all the peering points
that the route servers were installed, inconsistant announcements accounted
for very little (most list of violations would fit in a single browser
window without having to scroll) with the occasional exception of
misconfiguration or massive policy changes in the IRR.  We're talking
typically a maximum of a dozen inconsistancies and red-flagged routes
overall... usually for a small prefix.

/*===================[ Jake Khuon <[email protected]> ]======================+
 | Packet Plumber, Network Engineers     /| / [~ [~ |) | | --------------- |
 | for Effective Bandwidth Utilisation  / |/  [_ [_ |) |_| N E T W O R K S |