Yes this is a common practice to follow for extra security measures. In the off chance a provider starts flooding your network with more than what is required it will safe guard your network. You can set a slightly higher warning threshold. Usually more prevalent in MPLS environments as there are more memory constraints on carrying Internet routes in multiple VRFs could be detrimental to memory. Unlikely it would happen but always need to think of better ways to safe guard your network. For as long as humans are in existence there will always be room for error.
On Tue, Aug 11, 2020, 9:09 AM Yham <yhamee...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello Gentlemen, > > I wanted to ask if this is common practice to apply Maximum prefix limit on > BGP neighborship with Internet providers from where you are getting the > entire routing table. I know its consider a best practice but want to know > if its also common. > If yes, what would be the max limit of routes? Google search tells me that > the size of the routing table today is approx 800K prefixes > > Thanks > _______________________________________________ > cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ > _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
