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] Annoucing supernets in BGP?
- Previous message (by thread): [routing-wg] Annoucing supernets in BGP?
- Next message (by thread): [routing-wg] Annoucing supernets in BGP?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Carlos M. martinez
carlosm3011 at gmail.com
Tue Sep 11 17:42:46 CEST 2012
I get the point and I basically agree, but anyways, I'm still curious about what network dynamics might be at play here that make the covering announcement a source of problems. My question is strictly technical, I don't want to delve into the 'policy/authority' part of it (at this time at least :-) ) regards Carlos On 9/11/12 12:39 PM, Gert Doering wrote: > hi, > > On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 12:23:15PM -0300, Carlos M. martinez wrote: >> Are your trobules traceable to the covering announcement? More specifics >> should always win, period. Regardless even of BGP attributes, so I'm >> curious if your issues are traceable to the /5. > > That's sort of missing the point. Do not announce what you have no > authority over. > > And filter your downstream customers, using a mechanism that is based > on strong authentication. > > Gert Doering > -- NetMaster >
- Previous message (by thread): [routing-wg] Annoucing supernets in BGP?
- Next message (by thread): [routing-wg] Annoucing supernets in BGP?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]