You missed filing appropriate route objects. If you can file the correct objects it may mitigate upstream filter issues if the upstreams build their data from filed objects.
On May 31, 2011, at 9:45 AM, Andrew Miehs wrote: > I am not quite sure I understand exactly which problem it is you are trying > to solve. > > Let us assume you (AS10) have been assigned 10/8 from RIPE. > You assign your customer (AS5) a 10.0.0.0/22. > As stated, you peer with AS11. > > Many providers will not route provider assigned (PA) addresses from another > provider, without speaking to the other provider first. This means, AS5, > AS10 and AS11 will need to communicate with each other that this is ok, and > that you are planning on doing this. > > Your customer will announce AS5 you with the network 10.0.0.0/22 with his AS > number. > > In your routing table your path length to 10.0.0.0/22 will be via AS5 > You will see another route in your routing table from 10.0.0.0/22 via AS11, > AS5. > > And you should definitely at least filter what you are accepting from your > customer, if not from all your peering partners.I remember RIPE used to have > some great documentation on filtering based on the whois database. > > Did I miss something? > > Regards > > Andrew > _______________________________________________ > cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
