That they do. Thanks for a great system, BTW! ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nick Hilliard" <nick@foobar.org> To: "Mark Tinka" <mark.tinka@seacom.mu>, "Jared Mauch" <jared@puck.Nether.net> Cc: "North American Network Operators' Group" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2015 10:11:13 AM Subject: Re: Route leak in Bangladesh On 01/07/2015 16:02, Mark Tinka wrote:
Honestly, I'm ambivalent about using the IRR data for prefix-list generation (even without RPSL), also because of how much junk there is in there, and also how redundant some of it really is, e.g., someone creating a /32 (IPv4) route object and yet we only accept up to a /24 (IPv4) on the actual eBGP session, e.t.c.
We went through this a couple of years ago at INEX and ended up with a provisioning system which allows the operator to only allow specific IRRDB source: entries, customisable per customer. You're right that it would be foolish to accept any IRRDB source because a lot of them are complete trash. Otherwise, it works incredibly well for us and has stopped innumerable prefix leaks and other silly misconfigs. The source code is available on github.com/inex. Lots of IXPs use it in production. Nick