On Wed, 11 Aug 2021 at 12:24, Tom Hill <tom@ninjabadger.net> wrote:
On 10/08/2021 07:15, Lukas Tribus wrote:
Are there any big networks that drop or penalize announcements like this? It's possible you could get your peering request denied for this. I have put *reasonable* prefix aggregation into peering requirements for some years now. If you are a small eyeball network with 8192 IP addresses and originate 32 /24's, that is *not* reasonable.
It is quite an issue when a network tries to programmatically filter-out the /24 more-specifics advertisements made from an allocated, .e.g, /20.
Such anti-disaggregation/save-my-TCAM efforts really do not work, and will spawn all manner of support tickets. I'm saying this in the hope that it may prevent someone from reading this thread and concluding that it may be a good idea to try. It is not.
For the record: I did not suggest anything like this. Denying peering requests due to lack of *reasonable* prefix aggregation does not mean installing fancy, impossibile to maintain prefix-lists on transit ingress. I agree with you here, that would be very bad. This save-my-TCAM effort is successful when the peer on the other site actually realizes that there are consequences to decisions like this and reverts it, which is a long shot, sure, but at least I'm not encouraging this. I don't get to dictate other peoples configurations. I do get to decide who is directly exchanging traffic with my network and who isn't. lukas