Interestingly enough what Covad appears to be saying is: If we had a way to announce two things 1 - here are the advertisements for covering aggregates for Covad AND 2 - do not believe any more specifics for these address blocks, as they are NOT part of Covad's routing policy for these prefixes then we would not be seeing this unfortunate case of unauthorized route leakage being resolved in a way that seems to have unfortunate bgp implications in terms of more specifics appearing. So its an interesting question. How could Covad achieve a routing policy announcement of the form as stated in 2 above? regards, Geoff
Interestingly enough what Covad appears to be saying is:
If we had a way to announce two things
1 - here are the advertisements for covering aggregates for Covad
AND
2 - do not believe any more specifics for these address blocks, as they are NOT part of Covad's routing policy for these prefixes
then we would not be seeing this unfortunate case of unauthorized route leakage being resolved in a way that seems to have unfortunate bgp implications in terms of more specifics appearing.
So its an interesting question. How could Covad achieve a routing policy announcement of the form as stated in 2 above?
register the covering prefixes in the irr and folk should filter. folk who don't filter are welcome to the results. i encourage my competitors not to filter. randy
On (13/11/04 16:38), Randy Bush wrote:
register the covering prefixes in the irr and folk should filter. folk who don't filter are welcome to the results. i encourage my competitors not to filter.
it won't be your competitors who suffer though...it would be the networks that someone is trying to hijack that would see traffic/reachability problems. granted this would be limited in scope to those networks which are not filtering, but as we have seen numberous times on this list and others, filtering isn't universal or equally applied. while i don't agree with the methodology covad is using, i can understand their position. and if it had happened to me, i probably would have done the same, albeit for a shorter time frame...you and i are free to filter our networks as we see fit (or are contractually obligated), so if you want to filter at /18, go for it. i however will urge everyone (especially my competitors) to filter because it is good for them and good for me. /joshua -- **** END NANOG CENSORSHIP **** FREE RAS **** FREE WILCO
participants (3)
-
Geoff Huston -
joshua sahala -
Randy Bush