6 ms·
It's not few. It's a very common mistake. Say I have 20 10G ports on line card. Mid size ISP has from hundreds to thousands routes. Thus we will end up with ten
by betaby 9y ago
It's not few. It's a very common mistake. Say I have 20 10G ports on line card. Mid size ISP has from hundreds to thousands routes. Thus we will end up with tens of hundreds ACLs per line card. That affects performance, dramatically.
Say on older yet supported Cisco 7600 you can apply about 10k entries per port, ~ 100k totaling per card. That's limit, after that performance degrades.
Another question what to do on peer-peer links, like say NTT<->Centrylink? Both on them have interconnects across the globe ad sending each other hundreds of thousands prefixes on 100G ports. That's the challenge as well. Hardware is not there, it's coming slowly but not yet there. Most of the big players DO one or another form of ingress filtering on some ports. Valid point is that smaller players are arrogant ob the issue and dump all all the garbage to the upstream.
- majke 9y agoThis is why handwaving and shouting "BCP38" is not sufficient. I could live with half-baked BC38 deployment as it is now, if only I had other tools to trace malicious actors - netflow.
- hueving 9y agoDo it on ingress of regular customers or very small peering interfaces, not peering links with other ISPs. If all ISPs did this, there would be no ACL issue and BCP 38 would solve the problem. No need to make it harder than it is.