-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 164
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Remove 1239 from static list #716
Comments
do they connect to route servers at all the locations listed on peeringdb? The port speeds at most of the locations indicate that these are special purpose ixp connections rather than general-purpose #yolo peering. If they're using RS's at only one or two exchanges, it would be better to leave them in the list and individual ixp operators can modify as necessary. |
I've brought this into sync with @job's list on https://bgpfilterguide.nlnog.net/guides/no_transit_leaks/ and added some knobs to help avoid skinning - docs @ https://docs.ixpmanager.org/features/routers/#filtering-known-transit-networks |
@barryo Just saw this through the mention in the 6.2.0 release notes. IXP_NO_TRANSIT_ASNS_EXCLUDE looks to be just what we need! We were skinning that whole file just to remove 6461, so it looks like we can now remove that, revert to stock and just use IXP_NO_TRANSIT_ASNS_EXCLUDE. Thank you! Ian |
AS 1239 appears to have updated their strategy and appears to connect to more and more Route Servers at IXPs
source: https://www.peeringdb.com/asn/1239
IXP-Manager/data/travis-ci/known-good/ci-apiv4-b2-rc1-lan1-ipv4.conf
Line 182 in 7cd28f8
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: