[routing-wg]More specific prefix announce
Hello. Unfortunately, I'm not so experienced in the question to anwer that. Therefore I ask for help and will be thankful for any clarification. We have a /20 ASSIGNED PI address block and an AS. Is it allowed by RIPE policy to intentionally announce more specific prefix than one we have from our AS to upstream ASes? For example, announce our X.X.0.0/20 to upstream A and announce both X.X.0.0/20 and X.X.6.0/23 to B? -- Denis Tatarskikh [UdSU/MF] [UdSU/IC] mailto:dendy@udsu.ru
On Fri, Sep 02, 2005 at 12:01:16AM +0500, dendy@ulm.udsu.ru wrote:
Hello. Unfortunately, I'm not so experienced in the question to anwer that. Therefore I ask for help and will be thankful for any clarification.
We have a /20 ASSIGNED PI address block and an AS. Is it allowed by RIPE policy to intentionally announce more specific prefix than one we have from our AS to upstream ASes? For example, announce our X.X.0.0/20 to upstream A and announce both X.X.0.0/20 and X.X.6.0/23 to B?
It is not disallowed. What's more - it is common practice to perform incoming capacity engineering in this way.
-- Denis Tatarskikh [UdSU/MF] [UdSU/IC] mailto:dendy@udsu.ru
-- Regards, Volodymyr.
-----Message d'origine----- De : routing-wg-admin@ripe.net [mailto:routing-wg-admin@ripe.net] De la part de Volodymyr Yakovenko Envoyé : vendredi 2 septembre 2005 00:27 À : dendy@ulm.udsu.ru Cc : routing-wg@ripe.net Objet : Re: [routing-wg]More specific prefix announce
Hello. Unfortunately, I'm not so experienced in the question to anwer that. Therefore I ask for help and will be thankful for any clarification.
We have a /20 ASSIGNED PI address block and an AS. Is it allowed by RIPE policy to intentionally announce more specific prefix
On Fri, Sep 02, 2005 at 12:01:16AM +0500, dendy@ulm.udsu.ru wrote: than one we
have from our AS to upstream ASes? For example, announce our X.X.0.0/20 to upstream A and announce both X.X.0.0/20 and X.X.6.0/23 to B?
It is not disallowed. What's more - it is common practice to perform incoming capacity engineering in this way.
But, IMHO, preferably in a multiple interconnection to a single AS scenario only (having that AS export the shortest prefix only). Mh
-- Denis Tatarskikh [UdSU/MF] [UdSU/IC] mailto:dendy@udsu.ru
-- Regards, Volodymyr.
On 02.09.2005 11:12 Michael Hallgren wrote
It is not disallowed. What's more - it is common practice to perform incoming capacity engineering in this way.
But, IMHO, preferably in a multiple interconnection to a single AS scenario only (having that AS export the shortest prefix only).
Imho, the AS in questionn should export both the aggregate and the more specifics, but set community no-export to the more specifics ... Arnold -- Arnold Nipper / DE-CIX Management GmbH, the German Internet Exchange e-mail: arnold.nipper@de-cix.net phone/mob: +49 172 265 0958 fax: +49 6224 9259 333 http://www.de-cix.net pgp-fingerprint: e533 5cc5 be27 27ae 04b7 0adc 2603 f8a9 1b59 3bd4
Imho, the AS in questionn should export both the aggregate and the more specifics, but set community no-export to the more specifics ...
Sure, the receiver (upstream AS) keeping it AS local that is. That's the way it works, that's what I suggested (*). Sorry, perhaps my wording a bit brief. Cheers, Mh (*) or rather recycled from BCP.
Arnold -- Arnold Nipper / DE-CIX Management GmbH, the German Internet Exchange e-mail: arnold.nipper@de-cix.net phone/mob: +49 172 265 0958 fax: +49 6224 9259 333 http://www.de-cix.net pgp-fingerprint: e533 5cc5 be27 27ae 04b7 0adc 2603 f8a9 1b59 3bd4
On Fri, Sep 02, 2005 at 12:01:16AM +0500, dendy@ulm.udsu.ru wrote:
We have a /20 ASSIGNED PI address block and an AS. Is it allowed by RIPE policy to intentionally announce more specific prefix than one we have from our AS to upstream ASes?
Yes. RIPE has no rules regarding BGP announcements. Wether it's a good practice and/or socially accepted is a different matter. :-) Regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr@cluenet.de -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0
Hello! In practice, it works fine. You might like to set a hole: line in X.X.0.0/20 route object for X.X.6.0/23, and also create a separate route object for X.X.6.0/23.
Hello. Unfortunately, I'm not so experienced in the question to anwer that. Therefore I ask for help and will be thankful for any clarification.
We have a /20 ASSIGNED PI address block and an AS. Is it allowed by RIPE policy to intentionally announce more specific prefix than one we have from our AS to upstream ASes? For example, announce our X.X.0.0/20 to upstream A and announce both X.X.0.0/20 and X.X.6.0/23 to B?
-- WBR, Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253@FIDO)
participants (6)
-
Arnold Nipper -
Daniel Roesen -
dendy＠ulm.udsu.ru -
Max Tulyev -
Michael Hallgren -
Volodymyr Yakovenko