No I'm not suggesting basing it on what a provider is currently advertising. But rather on what the provider has registered and is authorized to announce. The set of authorized routes may be the same or a superset of what the routes the provider is currently announcing. If you want asymetric routes, you can register and authorize traffic via either route; and then dynamically announce which route you want to use moment to moment. On Wed, 15 November 2000, "Bora Akyol" wrote:
If I understand you correctly, you want to filter inbound traffic from a service provider to another based on what that service provider is advertising and based on the decision process that we run.
How do you suggest we handle asymmetric routes?
Bora
----- Original Message ----- From: "Sean Donelan" <sean@donelan.com> To: <heas@shrubbery.net> Cc: <nanog@merit.edu> Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2000 2:05 PM Subject: Re: [doable?] peer filtering (was Re: Trusting BGP sessions)
On Wed, 15 November 2000, john heasley wrote:
great, that must be why these problems dont occur. which solution are you using? i'm not flinging s*!@ over the fence; i'm truely interested.
If the problem is truely no router vendor make a router capable of holding a fully filtered route table we need to tell the router vendors this is a mandatory requirement or we won't buy their routers. Remember, once upon a time when no router could handle more than 30,000 routes or 64,000 routes. Once the router vendors were told what was needed, they built a box to meet that need.
It is not a given that no router will never support filtering a full tier-1 ISP's route table. Its just no one has made it a requirement.
Lets make it a requirement of the router vendors.