[db-wg] Route(6) objects
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] Route(6) objects
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] Route(6) objects
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Nick Hilliard
nick at foobar.org
Wed Jul 12 14:51:00 CEST 2023
Kaupo Ehtnurm wrote on 10/07/2023 08:06: > No, but I was wondering what do other AS-s do with my ipv6 prefix, if > they are using IRR filtering in bgp. > I am not talking only about providers and providers providers. I am > talking about all the AS-s in that participate in the global table and > accept the full bgp table and filter it based on the IRR and/or ROA > record. How can I be sure that they won't just drop my prefixes only > because of the incorrect route6 object values? > To eliminate the risk of my prefix getting blocked in some third party > AS I would like to have correct route(6) objects, not almost correct > (which technically are incorrect). Most transit providers accept <= the route/route6 prefix length. Some IXPs filter strictly. The best thing to do is to test this out and see if announcing an upstream /48 works. You can use e.g. ripe atlas or other measurement networks to test connectivity paths while upstream mitigation is in place, both with a /48 IRRDB entry for the announcement in question, and without. This should give you a clear idea about whether using individual /48s is worth the effort (I suspect the answer is probably not). Nick -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/attachments/20230712/4bc537c1/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] Route(6) objects
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] Route(6) objects
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ db-wg Archives ]