North American Network Operators Group

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

Re: more-specifics via IX

  • From: John Payne
  • Date: Mon Oct 15 08:37:14 2007
  • Authentication-results: [email protected]; domainkeys=pass (testing)
  • Authentication-results:; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) [email protected]
  • Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple;; s=haybaler; t=1192451604; bh=Dd9p51JuBY0qqfjAK8RNrAtbR8U=; h=References:Message-Id:From:To:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:X-Mailer: Mime-Version:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Date:Cc; b=YAFWDsLL LXSyuUaOjP6PnqEzlD66aRXRdOjdj6vyx/TyCMlYkXFgexBJxZeUiAuwvvnGv2vlxL3 QAEUbm7GX3+ZWSfLcwHPIIKO3rJc9IYTMUg/SJAfcZyDSOBeHcQCYY/4KygKZBeP5jw FjxNEFrh+TF899SVNPsiSt0vQEoJE=
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=haybaler;; c=nofws; q=dns; h=dkim-signature:references:message-id:from:to:in-reply-to: content-type:x-mailer:mime-version:subject: content-transfer-encoding:date:cc; b=tJF76fnGtILgUt1Q4lZsrr2ZdO9LEQ/NMWr1555KuBLls5SyiHaVGFDs71fdNVsZZ 5G9WbF5YirQE4hjGZcRge3phdZF9jBDfu7dgNouzrjIh4tnKngnUEHdc3+dKMG36We3 I4R6pfM/q8qi8iGOsVZ5qp1o1vRHT8R8ktPf4tY=

On Oct 15, 2007, at 7:41, Wolfgang Tremmel <[email protected]> wrote:

Am 15.10.2007 um 07:09 schrieb Bradley Urberg Carlson:

I have a few customers' customers, who appear at a local IX. Due to the MLPA-like nature of the IX, I hear their prefixes both at the IX and via my own transit customers. I normally use localpref to prefer customer advertisements over peers' advertisements.

There is a customer's customer who is advertising more-specifics at the IX (and using a different source AS, to boot). I can think of a couple ways to prevent hearing these, but thought I should ask for suggestions first.

you should honor your customers routing policy and simply accept the routes.

Whilst it is nice to accept a downstream of a downstream's routing policy like that I don't think it is your place to say that. The other response asking what the problem is also is a good example of the misunderstanding of problems with the shim6 solution although at a different place in the network. If MY policy is to send all customer traffic through my customer connections, I should be able to do that.

To answer the OP's question I'd be looking at manually filtering the more specifics if they are also sending the aggregates through the IX.