On Tue, Oct 11, 2022 at 5:32 PM Matthew Petach <[email protected]> wrote: > My point is that it's not a feature of BGP, it's a purely human convention, > arrived at through the intersection of pain and laziness. > There's nothing inherently "right" or "wrong" about where the line was > drawn, so for networks to decide that /24 is causing too much pain, > and moving the line to /23 is no more "right" or "wong" than drawing > the line at /24.
Hi Matthew, If you defy convention in a manner which causes things that normally work to break, your implementation is "wrong" for a fairly important definition of "wrong." > Let BGP work as it's supposed to work. > > If there's a covering prefix being announced, according to BGP, it's a valid > pathway to reach > all the prefixes contained within it. If that's not how your network is > constructed, don't > send out your announcements that way. Only announce prefixes for which you > *do* have > actual reachability. All TCP/IP routing is more-specific route first. That is the expected behavior. I honestly don't fathom your view that BGP is or should be different from that norm. If the origin of a covering route has no problem sinking the traffic when the more-specific is offline, I don't see the problem. You shouldn't be taking them offline with route filtering. Regards, Bill Herrin -- For hire. https://bill.herrin.us/resume/
