What a terrific idea..., simple & useful
El 29/8/17 a las 1:41 p.m., Michael Still escribió: > 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 > >