From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Derek Fawcus To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] peering Message-ID: <20040127232614.D16382@edinburgh.cisco.com> References: <000b01c3e40d$e3fb2260$9214598a@mars> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <000b01c3e40d$e3fb2260$9214598a@mars>; from aletko@iname.com on Mon, Jan 26, 2004 at 08:11:18AM -0500 Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 23:26:14 +0000 Topicbox-Message-UUID: c2b8b0e0-eacc-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 On Mon, Jan 26, 2004 at 08:11:18AM -0500, Artem Letko wrote: > AT&T does inbound filtering on the Cisco's. > > Art. Not to mention any specifics... but I believe the above sort of thing is correct. The routes exchanged are run through a filter to remove crap. where crap can be invalid routes (bogons), routes for prefixes that are too long (or short), and routes that violate a given policy. Then there are all sort of other fudges, like manipulating the path you receive from, or supply to a given peer (i.e. inserting/removing ASNs). DF > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Presotto" > To: <9fans@cse.psu.edu> > Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2004 8:26 PM > Subject: [9fans] peering > > > > Anyone out there connect to an ISP peering point (exchange, MAE, > whatever)? > > I'm interested in what you do to avoid crappy BGP routes. Anyone have > > experience with rtConfig, either good or bad? >