I agree a max-prefix outbound could potentially be useful and would hopefully not be too terribly difficult to implement for most vendors.
Perhaps RFC4486 would need to be updated to reflect this as a possibility as well? On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 5:41 PM, Julien Goodwin <na...@studio442.com.au> wrote: > On 28/08/17 18:34, Job Snijders wrote: >> Finally, it may be worthwhile exploring if we can standardize and >> promote maximum prefix limits applied on the the _sending_ side. This >> way you protect your neighbor (and the Internet at large) by >> self-destructing when you inadvertently announce more than what you'd >> expect to announce. BIRD has this functionality >> http://bird.network.cz/?get_doc&f=bird-3.html#proto-export-limit >> however I am not aware of other implementations. Feedback welcome! > > Having just dug up the reference for some strange reason... > > Back at NANOG38 (2006) Tom Scholl mentioned in a talk on max prefix: > "Perhaps maximum-prefix outbound? > (Suggested by Eric Bell years ago)" > https://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog38/presentations/scholl-maxpfx.pdf > > Notably Juniper does now have prefix-export-limit, but only for > readvertisement into IS-IS or OSPF: > https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/reference/configuration-statement/prefix-export-limit-edit-protocols-isis.html -- [stillwa...@gmail.com ~]$ cat .signature cat: .signature: No such file or directory [stillwa...@gmail.com ~]$
