Are specific route objects in RIR databases needed?

2014-01-30 Thread Martin T 
Hi,

for example there is a small company with /22 IPv4 allocation from
RIPE in European region. This company is dual-homed and would like to
announce 4x /24 prefixes to both ISPs. Both ISP's update their
prefix-lists automatically based on records in RIPE database. For
example Level3 uses this practice at least in Europe. If this small
company creates a route object for it's /22 allocation, then is it
enough? Theoretically this would cover all four /24 networks. Or in
which situation it is useful/needed to have route object for each
/24 prefix?



regards,
Martin

Re: Are specific route objects in RIR databases needed?

2014-01-30 Thread Job Snijders 
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 06:51:59PM +0200, Martin T wrote:

 for example there is a small company with /22 IPv4 allocation from
 RIPE in European region. This company is dual-homed and would like to
 announce 4x /24 prefixes to both ISPs. Both ISP's update their
 prefix-lists automatically based on records in RIPE database. For
 example Level3 uses this practice at least in Europe. If this small
 company creates a route object for it's /22 allocation, then is it
 enough? Theoretically this would cover all four /24 networks. Or in
 which situation it is useful/needed to have route object for each
 /24 prefix?

You should create a route object for each route that you announce, if
you announce 4 x /24 you should create a route: object for each /24. 

Some providers will create filters solely based on existing route
objects, others will create filters based on all route objects, AND 
allow up to a /24 regardless. I would err to the safe side. 

Kind regards,

Job

ps. Can you please send 20 dollarcent per /24 to my paypal account
(j...@instituut.net) with the reference deaggregation fee?


pgpwh26blVeHQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Are specific route objects in RIR databases needed?

2014-01-30 Thread Tore Anderson 
* Job Snijders

 On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 06:51:59PM +0200, Martin T wrote:
 
 for example there is a small company with /22 IPv4 allocation from
 RIPE in European region. This company is dual-homed and would like to
 announce 4x /24 prefixes to both ISPs. Both ISP's update their
 prefix-lists automatically based on records in RIPE database. For
 example Level3 uses this practice at least in Europe. If this small
 company creates a route object for it's /22 allocation, then is it
 enough? Theoretically this would cover all four /24 networks. Or in
 which situation it is useful/needed to have route object for each
 /24 prefix?
 
 You should create a route object for each route that you announce, if
 you announce 4 x /24 you should create a route: object for each /24. 

+1

 ps. Can you please send 20 dollarcent per /24 to my paypal account
 (j...@instituut.net) with the reference deaggregation fee?

Indeed.

Martin, I'd suggest announcing the 4 x /24s to each ISP tagged with the
no-export community in order to achieve whatever you are trying to do,
*in addition* to the covering /22. That way you're not polluting Job,
my, and everyone else's routing tables more than necessary, only your
own ISPs', but then again you're actually paying them for the privilege.

Tore

Re: Are specific route objects in RIR databases needed?

2014-01-30 Thread Martin T 
Job, Tore: ok, I see. So route object in RIR routing registry database
for each announced prefix is needed only because some ISPs create filters
exactly the size of the route object in database? So for example if there
is a route object for 192.0.2.0/24 in RIR database, then ISP-A might
create a following strict prefix-filter entry:

policy-options {
policy-statement EXAMPLE {
term prefixes {
from {
route-filter 192.0.2.0/24 exact;
}
then next policy;
}
then reject;
}
}

On the other hand, ISP-B might create loose filter based on the same
route object like this:

policy-options {
policy-statement EXAMPLE {
term prefixes {
from {
route-filter 192.0.2.0/24 upto /32;
}
then next policy;
}
then reject;
}
}


PS: this is a theoretical question :) I'm also for keeping the BGP table as
short as possible.


regards,
Martin

On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 5:13 PM, Tore Anderson t...@fud.no wrote:

 * Job Snijders

  On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 06:51:59PM +0200, Martin T wrote:
 
  for example there is a small company with /22 IPv4 allocation from
  RIPE in European region. This company is dual-homed and would like to
  announce 4x /24 prefixes to both ISPs. Both ISP's update their
  prefix-lists automatically based on records in RIPE database. For
  example Level3 uses this practice at least in Europe. If this small
  company creates a route object for it's /22 allocation, then is it
  enough? Theoretically this would cover all four /24 networks. Or in
  which situation it is useful/needed to have route object for each
  /24 prefix?
 
  You should create a route object for each route that you announce, if
  you announce 4 x /24 you should create a route: object for each /24.

 +1

  ps. Can you please send 20 dollarcent per /24 to my paypal account
  (j...@instituut.net) with the reference deaggregation fee?

 Indeed.

 Martin, I'd suggest announcing the 4 x /24s to each ISP tagged with the
 no-export community in order to achieve whatever you are trying to do,
 *in addition* to the covering /22. That way you're not polluting Job,
 my, and everyone else's routing tables more than necessary, only your
 own ISPs', but then again you're actually paying them for the privilege.

 Tore

Re: Are specific route objects in RIR databases needed?

2014-01-30 Thread Darren O'Connor 
I can't say what everyone else does, but we only make exact matches from route 
object to prefix-list

http://www.mellowd.co.uk/ccie

 On 30 Jan 2014, at 21:48, Martin T m4rtn...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 Job, Tore: ok, I see. So route object in RIR routing registry database
 for each announced prefix is needed only because some ISPs create filters
 exactly the size of the route object in database? So for example if there
 is a route object for 192.0.2.0/24 in RIR database, then ISP-A might
 create a following strict prefix-filter entry:
 
 policy-options {
policy-statement EXAMPLE {
term prefixes {
from {
route-filter 192.0.2.0/24 exact;
}
then next policy;
}
then reject;
}
 }
 
 On the other hand, ISP-B might create loose filter based on the same
 route object like this:
 
 policy-options {
policy-statement EXAMPLE {
term prefixes {
from {
route-filter 192.0.2.0/24 upto /32;
}
then next policy;
}
then reject;
}
 }
 
 
 PS: this is a theoretical question :) I'm also for keeping the BGP table as
 short as possible.
 
 
 regards,
 Martin
 
 On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 5:13 PM, Tore Anderson t...@fud.no wrote:
 
 * Job Snijders
 
 On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 06:51:59PM +0200, Martin T wrote:
 
 for example there is a small company with /22 IPv4 allocation from
 RIPE in European region. This company is dual-homed and would like to
 announce 4x /24 prefixes to both ISPs. Both ISP's update their
 prefix-lists automatically based on records in RIPE database. For
 example Level3 uses this practice at least in Europe. If this small
 company creates a route object for it's /22 allocation, then is it
 enough? Theoretically this would cover all four /24 networks. Or in
 which situation it is useful/needed to have route object for each
 /24 prefix?
 
 You should create a route object for each route that you announce, if
 you announce 4 x /24 you should create a route: object for each /24.
 
 +1
 
 ps. Can you please send 20 dollarcent per /24 to my paypal account
 (j...@instituut.net) with the reference deaggregation fee?
 
 Indeed.
 
 Martin, I'd suggest announcing the 4 x /24s to each ISP tagged with the
 no-export community in order to achieve whatever you are trying to do,
 *in addition* to the covering /22. That way you're not polluting Job,
 my, and everyone else's routing tables more than necessary, only your
 own ISPs', but then again you're actually paying them for the privilege.
 
 Tore