Hi, On Fri, Aug 05, 2011 at 02:53:21AM +0300, Martin T wrote: > why would one like to limit(maximum-prefix) ingress prefixes from IPX?
Because you really don't want to receive leaked full-tables from your
peers. Mistakes happen, and your customers will not like it if you
route "all of the Internet" through a completely overloaded peer router
that just attracted many gigs of extra traffic...
> Doesn't more prefixes mean more choice in terms of routes?
> In addition, for example in case of this "peval AS-ACCESSFORALL | sed
> 's/({//;s/})//;s/, /\n/g' | aggregate -q" example, there are 32
> different aggregated prefixes. Now if set maximum-prefix limit value
> to 20, which prefixes are accepted? First 20 which are seen by the
> router?
If you exceed the max-prefix set, the session will go down. It's a safeguard.
gert
--
USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
//www.muc.de/~gert/
Gert Doering - Munich, Germany [email protected]
fax: +49-89-35655025 [email protected]
pgprIFTbsC982.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
