[j-nsp] BGP Prefix-Limit On A Session

Richard A Steenbergen ras at e-gerbil.net
Wed Feb 25 21:46:33 EST 2004

On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 06:26:52PM -0800, Paul Goyette wrote:
> Richard,
> Your comments are certainly appreciated.  It would be most
> helpful if you could work with your Juniper account team to
> codify your requirements and have them file an Enhancement
> Request so we might be able to provide the functionality you
> want in a future release.

Yeah yeah yeah I know. :)

I'm not trying to harp on this issue, and please no one at Juniper take
offense, but I'm curious how many operators out there agree or disagree
with me on this point. This seems like as good a place as any to ask,
since Juniper using operators tend to be the clueful ones anyways.

Are there any operators out there who place the importance of prefix
limits providing protection of routing resources from someone announcing a
million routes above or anywhere near the importance of using prefix
limits to catch "common" leaks by peers/customers/etc which would result
in suboptimal routing?

Is this particular disconnect between developers and operators perhaps one
of the reasons why every operator I know would LOVE to see auto-adjusting
prefix limits that follow the "normal" number of prefixes announced by a
peer, and yet no vendor has ever tried to implement it (that I know of 

Food for thought at any rate.

Richard A Steenbergen <ras at e-gerbil.net>       http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras
GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)

More information about the juniper-nsp mailing list