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] Too large AS-sets
- Previous message (by thread): [routing-wg] Your opinion on Internet monitoring and measurements - a 10min survey
- Next message (by thread): [routing-wg] Relative size of IRR registries
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Antti Ristimäki
antti.ristimaki at csc.fi
Tue Oct 19 17:48:44 CEST 2021
Colleagues, I'd like to hear how you others deal with those peers, whose AS-sets expands to way too large prefix-lists and/or as-paths. There are some networks that only ever add members to their AS-sets, but never remove. I have some deep frustration at (automatically) configuring our routers with prefix-lists or as-path filters that are magnitude or two as big as the specific peer's real advertised route count. Modern router platforms can quite easily handle large configs, but gigantic as-path filters seem to cause unnecessary increase in commit times at least in our JunOS platforms. The penalty feels higher than the reward. After all, if the peer's AS-set expands to cover big portion of the entire ASN space, I'm begin to ponder whether it would make more sense to drop IRR based as-path filtering altogether for those peers and use e.g. some sort of generalized peerlock filter? Are there any others as frustrated as I am and how have you solved this issue? I will appreciate constructive feedback. -Antti
- Previous message (by thread): [routing-wg] Your opinion on Internet monitoring and measurements - a 10min survey
- Next message (by thread): [routing-wg] Relative size of IRR registries
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]