I can't find the original message, so replying to the wrong spot in the thread,
but... no, filtering /24s is a bad idea if you want (more or less) all your
packets to get to their destinations.
If you filter all /24s you will lose reachability to 4x /24s I publish that
have no covering route
abha ahuja died 21 years ago today; a force in routing, ops, and trying
to liberate the culture.
fort hose who want to pull threads,
http://www.neebu.net/~khuon/abha/
https://archive.nanog.org/resources/scholarships/abha_ahuja
there are others here who will have much better cites (hint
Dear NANOG,
Our apologies to those who received this message via multiple channels.
My colleagues and I recently revisited the topic of prefix
de-aggregation attacks. We believe that the current IPv6 allocation
policies combined with the ever-growing number of interconnection
opportunities
On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 6:23 AM Jon Lewis wrote:
> [...]
> While writing this though, two things occurred to me.
>
> 1) Are there any networks with routing policy that looks at prepends and
> says "if we see a peering path with >X number of prepends (or maybe
> just path length >X),
Your research is remarkably interesting.
I intend to study it more closely in the coming days.
I just like to share a methodology that I came across to mitigate this type
of problem, and that I found very elegant.
It's not ideal, but it has very small implementation requirements.
Using
The book, being written by an actual credentialed historian, contains their
complete sources as footnotes/endnotes. That section was overwhelming, I
mostly skipped it...
Adam Thompson
Consultant, Infrastructure Services
MERLIN
100 - 135 Innovation Drive
Winnipeg, MB R3T 6A8
(204) 977-6824 or
Dear all,
Before all else:
thank you all for the lightning-fast responses (even taking the time zone
advantage into account).
I really, really, really appreciate all your recommendations.
Virtually all of you recommend prepending as the first choice.
I also get the feeling that you guys
Always a bunch of them out there. Sometimes accidental, sometimes from
folks who are trying to do something , just using ineffective methods to do
it.
On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 10:21 Sandoiu Mihai wrote:
> Hi
>
>
>
> We have witnessed a lot of prepending in the last days, we got a few
> internet
1. Prepending by itself isn’t bad. Prepending past the point that it is
effective in accomplishing anything is what you generally want to avoid.
Even then, it’s not nearly as big a deal as some make it out to be in most
cases.
2. De-aggregation has it’s uses and it’s place. Have a /20 , but
On Thu, 20 Oct 2022, Tom Beecher wrote:
1. Prepending by itself isn’t bad. Prepending past the point that it is
effective in accomplishing anything is what you generally want to avoid. Even
then, it’s not nearly
as big a deal as some make it out to be in most cases.
To me, it's somewhat
If your Upstream(Transit provider) prepends your routes without you asking
or authorizing it to do so, you should SERIOUSLY consider switching
providers!
In the other email I talked about traffic engineering BGP communities.
If those prepends were made from some community you were applying... OK,
On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 5:13 AM Pirawat WATANAPONGSE via NANOG
wrote:
> I have considered the prepending myself, but dare not implement it yet
> for the fear that BGP (Human) Community will burn me alive, witch-hunt style,
> because of the following reasons:
> 1. I can see from looking glass(es)
Reading between the lines this network’s current lack of diverse providers is
consistent with a geographic/monopoly disadvantage. I do agree that your
transit provider is in bad form to pad your routes, but it does happen. A
phone call or email to understand their limitations may be helpful.
>
> 1) Are there any networks with routing policy that looks at prepends and
> says "if we see a peering path with >X number of prepends (or maybe
> just path length >X), demote the localpref to transit or lower"? "i.e.
> They obviously don't want us using this path, turn it into a
14 matches
Mail list logo
