What vendor by default does not take action on no-export???
Certainly cisco and juniper both honor it by default.
To get back to the original question of 63/9 being announced it can be entertaining to
watch for other fishy routes to show up in the routing table, like 63/8. I know of at
least one outage caused because someone advertised a route like that. The underlying
problem, is that there are no good widely deployed solutions for controlling what the
large backbones inject into the routing table at peering points. A large tier 1
deaggregates towards another bad things happen. It would be nice if there was a
supportable way to only allow one isp to advertise appropriate routes to another. The
IRR stuff is a neat idea but I dont think many ISPs trust it enough to use it to build
ACLs.
-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Stuart [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Sat 7/13/2002 7:00 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Paul Schultz
Subject: Re: No one behind the wheel at WorldCom
> I'm wondering how many folks out there choose not to honor this
> community and why. If anyone on the list chooses not to I'd be
> interested to hear (either on-list or off) the reasonings behind it.
Please also respond if you weren't aware that you have to explicitly
implement the policy of honoring no-export - while the community vaue
is "well-known," the policy is not built-in.
