What vendor by default does not take action on no-export??? Certainly cisco and juniper both honor it by default. To get back to the original question of 63/9 being announced it can be entertaining to watch for other fishy routes to show up in the routing table, like 63/8. I know of at least one outage caused because someone advertised a route like that. The underlying problem, is that there are no good widely deployed solutions for controlling what the large backbones inject into the routing table at peering points. A large tier 1 deaggregates towards another bad things happen. It would be nice if there was a supportable way to only allow one isp to advertise appropriate routes to another. The IRR stuff is a neat idea but I dont think many ISPs trust it enough to use it to build ACLs. -----Original Message----- From: Stephen Stuart [mailto:stuart@tech.org] Sent: Sat 7/13/2002 7:00 PM To: nanog@merit.edu Cc: Paul Schultz Subject: Re: No one behind the wheel at WorldCom
I'm wondering how many folks out there choose not to honor this community and why. If anyone on the list chooses not to I'd be interested to hear (either on-list or off) the reasonings behind it.
Please also respond if you weren't aware that you have to explicitly implement the policy of honoring no-export - while the community vaue is "well-known," the policy is not built-in.