> On Jun 24, 2019, at 11:00 AM, ML <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 6/24/2019 10:44 AM, Jared Mauch wrote: >> It was impacting to many networks. You should filter your transits to >> prevent impact from these more specifics. >> >> - Jared >> >> https://twitter.com/jaredmauch/status/1143163212822720513 >> https://twitter.com/JobSnijders/status/1143163271693963266 >> https://puck.nether.net/~jared/blog/?p=208 > > > $MAJORNET filters between peers make sense but what can a transit customer do > to prevent being affected by leaks like this one? Block routes from 3356 (for example) that don’t go 701_3356_ 701_2914_ 701_1239_ etc (if 701 is your transit and you are multi homed) Then you won’t accept the more specifics. If you point default it may not be any help. - Jared
- Re: CloudFla... i3D.net - Martijn Schmidt via NANOG
- Re: CloudFla... Mark Tinka
- Re: CloudFla... Fredrik Korsbäck
- Re: CloudFlare issues? Jaden Roberts
- Re: CloudFlare issues? Andree Toonk
- Re: CloudFlare issues? Max Tulyev
- Re: CloudFlare issues? Filip Hruska
- Re: CloudFlare issues? Christopher Morrow
- Verizon Routing issue Jared Mauch
- Re: Verizon Routing issue ML
- Re: Verizon Routing issue Jared Mauch
- Re: Verizon Routing issue Max Tulyev
- Re: Verizon Routing issue Jared Mauch
- Re: CloudFlare issues? Max Tulyev
- How Verizon and a BGP Optimizer Knocke... Martin J. Levy
- Re: CloudFlare issues? Scott Weeks
- Re: CloudFlare issues? Francois Lecavalier
- Re: CloudFlare issues? Job Snijders
- Re: CloudFlare issues? Ben Maddison via NANOG
- Re: CloudFlare issues? Mark Tinka
- RE: CloudFlare issues? Francois Lecavalier

