North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
RE: 69/8...this sucks
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > On Tue, 11 Mar 2003, Owen DeLong wrote: > > > In short, it doesn't. Longer answer, if the ISP configures > > his router correctly, he can actually refuse to accept > > advertisements from other sessions that are longer versions > > of prefixes received through this session. > > How??? There is a technically possible (but rather twisted) way you could not use the adverts, but not a way to refuse receiving them that I know of. Consider the connection between ISP X and ISP Y. ISP Y and is the provider who wants to null route any bogon traffic, even if ISP X advertises a more specific route for it. EBGP session between 192.168.0.1/30 and 192.168.0.2/30. ISP Y places 192.168.0.2 into VRF "X-Real". Also in VRF "X-Real" is 192.168.1.1 Now a VRF "X-Bogon" is created containing 192.168.1.2 and 192.168.2.1. And finally the ISP's Default-IP-Routing-Table or other general internet VRF contains 192.168.2.2. 192.168.1.1/192.168.1.2 and 192.168.2.1/192.168.2.2 are connected. (for example, create virtual interfaces on a GigE representing each side of a pair in the relevant VRFs and then loop the VLANs of each pair of virtual interfaces -- is there a way to create two "paired" loopback interfaces to interconnect VRFs rather than extending to a physical connection like I always have?) 192.168.1.1 (BGP router in VRF X-Real) and 192.168.2.2 (BGP router in Default-IP-Routing-Table) communicate via IBGP route reflection. Either dynamic or static routing can be used to ensure 220.127.116.11 and 192.168.2.2 know the way to reach each other. BGP router 192.168.2.1 (BGP router in X-Bogon) takes ONLY a bogon feed, and modifies the received routes to set the next hop either into oblivion (eg. out a loopback with no ip unreachables set and a deny ip any any ACL) or to a some kind of DoS/worm tracking server (since almost all of this traffic will be part of some kind of attack or worm, and you will quite probably want to know about it; you can also set your default route in your regular network to such a server that records all traffic received). Policy routing is applied on interface 192.168.1.2 saying "set IP default next hop 192.168.2.2" and on interface 192.168.2.1 saying "set IP default next hop 192.168.1.1". It would work. I've done things similar to this example in a lab to prove they work. I wouldn't want to let a configuration like this loose on the production internet, though, and anyone who would is probably a _Certifiable_ Cisco Internet Engineer. David.