[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Filtering prefixes longer than /24

On Mon, 9 Jul 2001 [email protected] wrote:
> >The routing document says you MUST make arrangements with your peers if
> >you do longer advertisements, but advertising these prefixes doesn't help
> >any if they are being filtered by the third parties.
> 	because third parties are not in your arrangements.

True, which is why I'm taking up the issue for general consideration.

> >Filtering /48 and more specific is IMO ok to me, but /32 appears a little
> >too strict.
> 	based on RFC2772 recommendation, i see the following filter in
> 	many places.   how do you measure "too strict"?
> ipv6 prefix-list 6bone-filter seq 5 permit 3ffe::/17 le 24 ge 24
> ipv6 prefix-list 6bone-filter seq 10 permit 3ffe:8000::/17 le 28 ge 28
> ipv6 prefix-list 6bone-filter seq 12 deny 3ffe::/16
> ipv6 prefix-list 6bone-filter seq 15 permit 2000::/3 le 16 ge 16
> ipv6 prefix-list 6bone-filter seq 20 permit 2001::/16 le 35 ge 29

With "too strict" I mean preventing prefixes that:
 - aren't there by accident (redistributing connected and static
routes causing various /64 - /128 in DFZ)
 - don't bloat the routing table by too specific routes (/48) as a
 - could actually be used in some valid environments (if your upstream
pTLA peering isn't optimal, you can't go peer with anyone else, or create
backup peering; you have to renumber the site or use two addresses in each

Ie, the current behaviour is easily defined, but also kind of "because we

Pekka Savola                 "Tell me of difficulties surmounted,
Netcore Oy                   not those you stumble over and fall"
Systems. Networks. Security.  -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords