Joe Abley wrote:
On 9-May-2006, at 08:29 , Alastair Johnson wrote:
200 : customer 175 : private peering 170 : public peering 150 : domestic transit 130 : international transit
When building a list like this it can sometimes be useful to consider what happens to a route which (through configuration error) avoids receiving the standard import policy, e.g. through a session that is missing a route-map.
Very good point, Joe. I hadn't thought of that, but it does make sense. Of course, we're all using standard peer profiles and group definitions which would NEVER allow this to happen, right? And with every operator practising ITIL change control and release management, it'll never happen. :-)
In any case, having a dummy IBGP peer running OpenBGPd or Quagga or similar which sends alerts when it sees routes with non-standard LOCAL_PREF values can be a handy thing.
Good call. I also had a small route collector participating in my backbone OSPF area to check for anomolous routes (amongst other things). aj.