Hi Vincent,
I´d suggest to create each route object for each announced prefix... If you did it right, you should see irrexplorer for your ASN in green only: http://irrexplorer.nlnog.net/search/61098 (looks excellent) IMHO you are very right - there are for sure networks out there, which will filter your prefixes, when you do not have a matching route object entry ...
Bernd
-----Original Message----- From: swinog-bounces@lists.swinog.ch [mailto:swinog-bounces@lists.swinog.ch] On Behalf Of Vincent Bernat Sent: Montag, 20. November 2017 11:03 To: swinog@swinog.ch Subject: [swinog] RIPE database and more specific routes
Hey!
I am updating the route/inetnum objects in the RIPE database and I am wondering if I have to create more specific route objects. For example, I have the following routes announced:
- 89.145.160.0/21 - 89.145.160.0/22 (FR7) - 89.145.164.0/23 (DK2) - 89.145.166.0/23 (GV2)
Each more specific route is announced in a different location. Should I create only the top route object or should I create a route object for each announce?
If I look at bgpq3, I see by default, it uses exact matches:
$ bgpq3 -4 -J -E AS61098 | grep 89.145 route-filter 89.145.160.0/21 exact; route-filter 89.145.160.0/22 exact; route-filter 89.145.164.0/23 exact; route-filter 89.145.166.0/23 exact;
However, I use it this way:
$ bgpq3 -R 24 -4 -J -E AS61098 | grep 89.145 route-filter 89.145.160.0/21 upto /24;
But I am concerned some people may build filters using only exact matches, so it seems safer to have route objects for more specifics. -- If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -- J.R.R. Tolkien
_______________________________________________ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog