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.
Hi,
On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 11:03:18AM +0100, Vincent Bernat wrote:
But I am concerned some people may build filters using only exact matches, so it seems safer to have route objects for more specifics.
Generally speaking, you should have route objects for what you intend to announce.
*Some* upstreams might be libral and accept everything up to a /24 from the blocks you define, but others are very strict.
Gert Doering -- NetMaster
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
-
Bernd Spiess -
Gert Doering -
Vincent Bernat