Hi, On Fri, Aug 05, 2011 at 02:53:21AM +0300, Martin T wrote: > why would one like to limit(maximum-prefix) ingress prefixes from IPX?
Because you really don't want to receive leaked full-tables from your peers. Mistakes happen, and your customers will not like it if you route "all of the Internet" through a completely overloaded peer router that just attracted many gigs of extra traffic... > Doesn't more prefixes mean more choice in terms of routes? > In addition, for example in case of this "peval AS-ACCESSFORALL | sed > 's/({//;s/})//;s/, /\n/g' | aggregate -q" example, there are 32 > different aggregated prefixes. Now if set maximum-prefix limit value > to 20, which prefixes are accepted? First 20 which are seen by the > router? If you exceed the max-prefix set, the session will go down. It's a safeguard. gert -- USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW! //www.muc.de/~gert/ Gert Doering - Munich, Germany g...@greenie.muc.de fax: +49-89-35655025 g...@net.informatik.tu-muenchen.de
pgprIFTbsC982.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/