North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: UUNet Offer New Protection Against DDoS
We still implement exact match prefix filtering, but also generate a second "aggregated" prefix-list for customers to match more specifics. If a prefix matches 3561:666 _and_ falls within the DDoS/aggregated prefix-list, we accept it and blackhole it. If a customer announces the more specific without the community, we won't accept it. (No flame wars about exact match filtering please). Yes, that means we maintain two prefix-lists for each customer. uRPF is another matter. We use policies for prefix-lists on Junipers and prefix-lists on Cisco's, which means that if we want to do strict uRPF for customers we have to generate a third prefix-list/acl? <sigh> Regards, Mark Kasten C&W^H^H^H^Savvis . Stephen J. Wilcox wrote: I'm puzzled by one aspect on the implementation.. how to build your customer prefix filters.. that is, we have prefix-lists for prefix and length. Therefore at present we can only accept a tagged route for a whole block.. not good if the announcement is a /16 etc !
|