Changes to announcements to the APE and WIX route servers
When you're announcing to the list that you are making changes to your BGP announcements it would help if people would: 1) State which AS these announcements are coming from. This helps me double check I'm making changes to the right route objects. 2) State which routers the BGP sessions are on. This helps me double check I'm making changes to the right route objects. 3) Give a list of all the prefixes you want announced in CIDR format. I'm happy to see a mention of the changes as well but having the complete list means I can be sure it's right. Posting the Cisco prefix list doesn't really help me that much as tthe route servers don't get configured by me cutting and pasting. Others may have different requirements but this info would really help me. For example, something like: We've added the following block to our announcement to the APE route servers: 222.222.222.0/24 Our AS is 34567 and the complete list we're announcing from 192.203.154.150 is: 222.222.219.0/24 222.222.221.0/24 222.222.222.0/24 ---- You can check what we think your filter lists look like by going to: http://www.ape.net.nz/cgi-bin/ShowRoutes.cgi http://www.wix.net.nz/cgi-bin/ShowRoutes.cgi
On 21 Jun 2004, at 07:21, Andy Linton wrote:
When you're announcing to the list that you are making changes to your BGP announcements it would help if people would:
1) State which AS these announcements are coming from. This helps me double check I'm making changes to the right route objects.
2) State which routers the BGP sessions are on. This helps me double check I'm making changes to the right route objects.
Another idea is for people to register their own route objects, and maintain their own aut-num object in the Citylink route registry. Or the APNIC registry, or the RADB, or somewhere. I'm not particularly convinced that making ad-hoc announcements to this list is really the best way of doing things. Sending mail directly to the contact at a peer and following up if you don't get a reply is surely a better plan (plus, you get to find out when the contact for a peer changes). How many people religiously follow up on every single route filter update message sent to this list? I bet the answer is not "everybody". Joe
Joe Abley wrote:
Another idea is for people to register their own route objects, and maintain their own aut-num object in the Citylink route registry. Or the APNIC registry, or the RADB, or somewhere.
I'm not particularly convinced that making ad-hoc announcements to this list is really the best way of doing things. Sending mail directly to the contact at a peer and following up if you don't get a reply is surely a better plan (plus, you get to find out when the contact for a peer changes).
How many people religiously follow up on every single route filter update message sent to this list? I bet the answer is not "everybody".
Joe's absolutely right of course. I'm keen for people to use the route registry(s) and when I get back from leave in August I'll chase that with you all. andy
participants (2)
-
Andy Linton -
Joe Abley