On Saturday, May 23rd, 2026 at 16:36, Robert Raszuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> So I took a moment and generated those CSV files and a small markup. Of > course it is subject for manual review of what should be or shouldn't be sent > over a real inter-domain EBGP session. Hi All, I'd really like to see something happen around this space and I'm happy to help (if/where) I can. We see all manner of essentially "internal only" attributes being sent to us from our eBGP peers. Sometimes our customers complain that we are sending them UPDATES with attributes that should not be present, and then depending on their BGP implementation that can be a problem for them. I see two problems with us trying to improve this for them: * There isn't a clear list of what we should / shouldn't accept, so if the working groups can come up with such a list, that could be very helpful. * Our vendors don't support for filtering routes with specific attributes (because their policy language syntax today doesn't support matching on specific attributes). Once such a list exists and the problem definition is clear, then operators like us would be in a position to put the thumb screws on our vendors to get this supported. I had a look through the data Robert generated, it seem like there is probably quite a lot that could be filtered in the DFZ. With kind regards, James.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ GROW mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
