Re: Filter update procedures

[Jacques Caron <]

At 18:11 22/05/00, Mike Hughes wrote:
> On Mon, 22 May 2000, Jacques Caron wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > This is probably a recurring discussion... Feel free to point me to older
> > threads on the same subject. Also, the discussion might be more 
> appropriate
> > in another forum (routing WG, specific IX mailing lists...)?
>
> Yep, we have seen this one before at the LINX. At one point there was
> discussion about moving "update filter" notifications to a separate list
> (other than the LINX ops list), and possibly using a standard
> (i.e. machine readable) format. However, that seems to have fizzled out.
I thought about it too (the machine readable thing), but if it's a machine, 
then it might as well use whatever is already in RADB/RIPE DB directly :-)

> More common, certainly from personal experience, is the setting of
> maximum-prefix on your peering sessions.
>
> This tends to protect against people sending you the "boat load", while
> allowing for the smaller changes in announcements you would get from a
> "Please update filters" type of email.
It is indeed better than nothing, but still allows many errors to get through.

> Of course, you need to tune this on a per-peer basis to make sure it works
> properly (for example, some networks offer 4000+ prefixes over peering,
> and others only 1), and keep an eye if they start transiting a largish AS,
> which could push them over the limit.
Which would be a good point in favor of (some of) the "please accept..." 
messages.

> > Some specific field in AS descriptions in the RIPE DB to indicate
> > notification of changes would be great too. It would avoid "spamming"
> > everybody with the filter updates.
>
> OK, hypothetically, let's call this field "update-c", and make it an
> optional field in autnums. This would also rely on people to do the right
> thing and only email update-c addresses, and not to "fallback" on spamming
> the tech-c and admin-c. There's a possibility that people's "update
> peering" robots could be set of fall back on other contacts in the
> object. Maybe it will work?
The first question is in fact: are there any people that really *need* to 
receive these mails? Does anyone actually do anything with them (other than 
hit "delete")?

Jacques.

--- Jacques Caron
    PSINetworks Europe Network Engineer
    PSINet Europe Regional Peering Coordinator
    Planete.net IT Manager
    Mail:   8/10 rue Nieuport - 78140 Velizy - France
    Phone:  +33 (0)1 34 63 19 71 - Fax: +33 (0)1 34 63 19 51