This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/routing-wg@ripe.net/
[routing-wg]Routing Aggregation Policy
- Previous message (by thread): [routing-wg]Routing Aggregation Policy
- Next message (by thread): [routing-wg]New RIPE Document available: RIPE-353
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Barry Greene (bgreene)
bgreene at cisco.com
Thu Oct 13 16:12:15 CEST 2005
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2005 at 07:52:53AM -0700, Barry Greene > (bgreene) wrote: > > Why not look at the exiting BGP policy tool we have today in 12.0S, > > 12.2S, Junos, and IOX to see if it can be a configurable > policy - if > > it is not - draft a new feature description. You got both > vendor here. > > I've done this in other SP Security forums. > > I don't really understand how this is going to work. What > can the routers do here? "Auto-De-Peer this neighbor if the > aggregation ratio is bad"? People where saying the same thing when we started the Bogon Prefix filtering project. The side effect of the Bogon project is a limit on the de-aggregation. Strict and Loose both have limits on the largest prefix allowed through. That is why we do not see /28s all over the place. So if you look at this policy idea and think - how would I like BGP code to filter to enforce this. You add it into the RIPE document as a recommendation to the vendors. The vendors then go out and add the filtering capabilities to match the RIPE policy.
- Previous message (by thread): [routing-wg]Routing Aggregation Policy
- Next message (by thread): [routing-wg]New RIPE Document available: RIPE-353
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]