> Point being that in cases like this (or really all route leak cases) > the only thing that stops this is filtering routes between bgp peers. > (transits, customers, SFP peers) There isn't anything in the protocol > itself (which is Stephen's, Russ's, Randy's comment through out) that > tells you/me/them that 12989 should not be permitted to announce this > route. (looking at available data, it seems that they SHOULD, perhaps > not with this ASPath, but...)
we can not know intent. to take it to one extreme, did the pakistani operator mean to 'leak' youtube's prefix or not? randy _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
