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.
On Wed, Nov 15, 2000 at 02:05:19PM -0800, Sean Donelan darkened my spool with the following:
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.
no doubt. and there are new vendors stepping up to the table - some of which dont have ear wax (yet?), hoping to get a piece of the backbone market. what do we do for today, with the widgets we have? what do we (collectively) want to ask vendors to implement?
Lets make it a requirement of the router vendors.
no doubt. and there are new vendors stepping up to the table - some of which dont have ear wax (yet?), hoping to get a piece of the backbone market.
what do we do for today, with the widgets we have? what do we (collectively) want to ask vendors to implement?
excellent! (collective) vendor wish lists are a good idea! -abha ;)
Sean 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.
participants (4)
-
abha -
Bora Akyol -
john heasley -
Sean Donelan