On (2013-09-26 17:02 -0500), Jared Mauch wrote:
> I certainly agree. There is a very narrow case for filtering 128 as it's a
> VPN attribute that should not be in the big-I Internet.
I can't think of application right now, but I'm not convinced there isn't
application for 128 over INET.
I know R
I certainly agree. There is a very narrow case for filtering 128 as it's a VPN
attribute that should not be in the big-I Internet.
Jared Mauch
> On Sep 26, 2013, at 4:28 PM, Saku Ytti wrote:
>
> Once those filters are deployed there will be strong resistance to remove
> them.
On (2013-09-25 11:35 -0400), Jared Mauch wrote:
Hi,
> I'm not really in favor of the features vendors have provided, such as this
> to just drop the attribute or routes.
I would encourage customers to require in their transit agreements that bgp
updates are not mangled by provider. It would hel
I'm curious how others are working with customers running code that drop the
session with valid BGP attributes.
Anyone else monitoring the proliferation of routes with attribute 128?
I'm not really in favor of the features vendors have provided, such as this to
just drop the attribute or routes
Has anyone else been observing this? This appears to be ATTR_SET and is
appearing at route-views.
Was curious if anyone else was tracking this (or the origin ;)).
It's been going on for some time now and it's not seemed to cause any troubles
(part of the reason i monitor for these attributes,
5 matches
Mail list logo
