Yes, it is bad practice. Yes, it's polluting the route table. If the # of /24s involved is not ridiculously large (say, <64?) them I would go ahead, as long as IRR and/or RPKI are also updated. Obviously if everyone did it (i.e. advertising /24s exclusively) then our FIBs would collectively balloon to a grotesquely un-manageable size, at least on platforms that can't auto-aggregate that back down. Thankfully, everyone isn't doing it. I, too, would vastly prefer no-one did this, but I have two customers that demand it from time to time... and we've even done it for our own allocation sometimes, and there's no robust, never mind bullet-proof, technical argument why I can't do that for them (or for ourselves). OTOH robust arguments exist for why it's a good thing to do - sometimes, and temporarily. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ -Adam
Adam Thompson Consultant, Infrastructure Services [1593169877849] 100 - 135 Innovation Drive Winnipeg, MB, R3T 6A8 (204) 977-6824 or 1-800-430-6404 (MB only) athomp...@merlin.mb.ca<mailto:athomp...@merlin.mb.ca> www.merlin.mb.ca<http://www.merlin.mb.ca/> ________________________________ From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+athompson=merlin.mb...@nanog.org> on behalf of Billy Croan <bcr...@unrealservers.net> Sent: August 9, 2021 10:47 To: nanog list <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: "Tactical" /24 announcements How does the community feel about using /24 originations in BGP as a tactical advantage against potential bgp hijackers? All of our allocations are larger and those prefixes we announce for clients as well usually are. But we had a request recently to originate everything as distinct /24 prefixes, to reduce the effect of a potential bgp hijack. It seemed a little bit like a tragedy of the commons situation. Is this seen as route table pollution, or a necessary evil in today's world? How many routers out there today would be affected if everyone did this? Are there any big networks that drop or penalize announcements like this?
