Hi, This is probably a recurring discussion... Feel free to point me to older threads on the same subject. Also, the discussion might be more appropriate in another forum (routing WG, specific IX mailing lists...)? The issue is that of route filtering procedures between peers. Some of us (especially those that are present on many IXes) receive quite a bunch of "please update your filters with AS so and so and routes so and so", but I wonder if anyone uses them? I have the feeling most people either: - don't filter anything - filter based on IRR (RADB/RIPE DB...) contents (using an as-macro), with regular automatic updates I don't feel manually updated filters are very realistic. I guess a small survey on "who needs notification of new announcements" would be a good idea... I suspect we'd end up with a very small list. Some specific field in AS descriptions in the RIPE DB to indicate notification of changes would be great too. It would avoid "spamming" everybody with the filter updates. Comments? Thanks, Jacques. --- Jacques Caron PSINetworks Europe Network Engineer PSINet Europe Regional Peering Coordinator Planete.net IT Manager Mail: 8/10 rue Nieuport - 78140 Velizy - France Phone: +33 (0)1 34 63 19 71 - Fax: +33 (0)1 34 63 19 51
On Mon, 22 May 2000, Jacques Caron wrote:
Hi,
This is probably a recurring discussion... Feel free to point me to older threads on the same subject. Also, the discussion might be more appropriate in another forum (routing WG, specific IX mailing lists...)?
Yep, we have seen this one before at the LINX. At one point there was discussion about moving "update filter" notifications to a separate list (other than the LINX ops list), and possibly using a standard (i.e. machine readable) format. However, that seems to have fizzled out.
The issue is that of route filtering procedures between peers. Some of us (especially those that are present on many IXes) receive quite a bunch of "please update your filters with AS so and so and routes so and so", but I wonder if anyone uses them? I have the feeling most people either: - don't filter anything - filter based on IRR (RADB/RIPE DB...) contents (using an as-macro), with regular automatic updates
More common, certainly from personal experience, is the setting of maximum-prefix on your peering sessions. This tends to protect against people sending you the "boat load", while allowing for the smaller changes in announcements you would get from a "Please update filters" type of email. Of course, you need to tune this on a per-peer basis to make sure it works properly (for example, some networks offer 4000+ prefixes over peering, and others only 1), and keep an eye if they start transiting a largish AS, which could push them over the limit.
Some specific field in AS descriptions in the RIPE DB to indicate notification of changes would be great too. It would avoid "spamming" everybody with the filter updates.
OK, hypothetically, let's call this field "update-c", and make it an optional field in autnums. This would also rely on people to do the right thing and only email update-c addresses, and not to "fallback" on spamming the tech-c and admin-c. There's a possibility that people's "update peering" robots could be set of fall back on other contacts in the object. Maybe it will work? Mike -- Mike Hughes Senior Network Engineer London Internet Exchange mike@linx.net http://www.linx.net/ "Only one thing in life is certain: init is Process #1"
At 18:11 22/05/00, Mike Hughes wrote:
On Mon, 22 May 2000, Jacques Caron wrote:
Hi,
This is probably a recurring discussion... Feel free to point me to older threads on the same subject. Also, the discussion might be more appropriate in another forum (routing WG, specific IX mailing lists...)?
Yep, we have seen this one before at the LINX. At one point there was discussion about moving "update filter" notifications to a separate list (other than the LINX ops list), and possibly using a standard (i.e. machine readable) format. However, that seems to have fizzled out.
I thought about it too (the machine readable thing), but if it's a machine, then it might as well use whatever is already in RADB/RIPE DB directly :-)
More common, certainly from personal experience, is the setting of maximum-prefix on your peering sessions.
This tends to protect against people sending you the "boat load", while allowing for the smaller changes in announcements you would get from a "Please update filters" type of email.
It is indeed better than nothing, but still allows many errors to get through.
Of course, you need to tune this on a per-peer basis to make sure it works properly (for example, some networks offer 4000+ prefixes over peering, and others only 1), and keep an eye if they start transiting a largish AS, which could push them over the limit.
Which would be a good point in favor of (some of) the "please accept..." messages.
Some specific field in AS descriptions in the RIPE DB to indicate notification of changes would be great too. It would avoid "spamming" everybody with the filter updates.
OK, hypothetically, let's call this field "update-c", and make it an optional field in autnums. This would also rely on people to do the right thing and only email update-c addresses, and not to "fallback" on spamming the tech-c and admin-c. There's a possibility that people's "update peering" robots could be set of fall back on other contacts in the object. Maybe it will work?
The first question is in fact: are there any people that really *need* to receive these mails? Does anyone actually do anything with them (other than hit "delete")? Jacques. --- Jacques Caron PSINetworks Europe Network Engineer PSINet Europe Regional Peering Coordinator Planete.net IT Manager Mail: 8/10 rue Nieuport - 78140 Velizy - France Phone: +33 (0)1 34 63 19 71 - Fax: +33 (0)1 34 63 19 51
Jacques Caron wrote:
Hi,
This is probably a recurring discussion... Feel free to point me to older threads on the same subject. Also, the discussion might be more appropriate in another forum (routing WG, specific IX mailing lists...)?
The issue is that of route filtering procedures between peers. Some of us (especially those that are present on many IXes) receive quite a bunch of "please update your filters with AS so and so and routes so and so", but I wonder if anyone uses them? I have the feeling most people either: - don't filter anything - filter based on IRR (RADB/RIPE DB...) contents (using an as-macro), with regular automatic updates
I don't feel manually updated filters are very realistic. I guess a small survey on "who needs notification of new announcements" would be a good idea... I suspect we'd end up with a very small list.
Some specific field in AS descriptions in the RIPE DB to indicate notification of changes would be great too. It would avoid "spamming" everybody with the filter updates.
Comments?
Hi Jacques currently we use max-prefixes in the UK to reduce the admin overhead. Works well and is simple. Provides some sensible protection. I have never been totally sure of how up to date IRRs are. cheers tb
Hi again, So, if I understand correctly, nobody on this list uses the "Please update filters" messages, and only set maximum prefixes on the BGP sessions? Thanks, Jacques. --- Jacques Caron PSINetworks Europe Network Engineer PSINet Europe Regional Peering Coordinator Planete.net IT Manager Mail: 8/10 rue Nieuport - 78140 Velizy - France Phone: +33 (0)1 34 63 19 71 - Fax: +33 (0)1 34 63 19 51
participants (3)
-
Jacques Caron -
Mike Hughes -
Tony Barber