North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: Route table growth and hardware limits...talk to the filter
On Sat, Sep 08, 2007 at 08:22:24AM -0400, William Allen Simpson wrote: > > Jon Lewis wrote: > > If filtering is inevitible, I think it's worth reviving the CIDR police and > > perhaps scaring some clue into the networks that stand to be filtered off > > the net by anyone needing to do any level of filtering. > I agree. > > The first step would be figuring out the needed aggregate announcements, > contacting the providers or upstreams. > > Who is willing to run a database to coordinate the effort? > > In North America, most everybody has returned from holidays. Let's make > September the month of CIDR improvement! And October 1st the deadline.... > > I do not agree the filters as originally proposed are "too aggressive". > Traffic engineering with one's peers is all very well and good, but at > the second AS (or overseas) it's not acceptable. I think this is the most important point so far. There are a lot of providers that think that their announcements need to be global to manage link/load balancing with their peers/upstreams. Proper use of no-export (or similar) on the more specifics and the aggregate being sent out will reduce the global noise significantly. Perhaps some of the providers to these networks will nudge them a bit more to use proper techniques. I'm working on routing leaks this month. There have already been over 2600 leak events today that could have been prevented with as-path filters of some sort, either on a cutomer or peer. (this would obviously be in-addition to prefix-list filters). - Jared -- Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from jared@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine.