You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I think this defeats the entire purpose of using aroutserver. Both options shouldn't be user configurable - if people want to produce non-filtering route servers they can look elsewhere. By making it user configurable, two things happen: an entire exchange goes unfiltered, which is useless - and it enables exchanges to make exceptions per participant, an extremely unhealthy proposition.
I understand flexibility is a nice thing to have, but in this case the flexibility only offers poor choices and as such I'd argue that it is simply removed.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
In comparison, IXP Manager purposefully doesn't even have configuration options to disable the filtering. This is very beneficial, because when you ask the IXP how they do filtering, all they need to say is "IXP Manager" and you know enough. It also ensures that people (both IXP operators and IXP participants) have a far lower chance of shooting themselves in the foot, because there is less ways to configure the program in an insecure way.
I see IXPs deploying arouteserver with the following config
I think this defeats the entire purpose of using aroutserver. Both options shouldn't be user configurable - if people want to produce non-filtering route servers they can look elsewhere. By making it user configurable, two things happen: an entire exchange goes unfiltered, which is useless - and it enables exchanges to make exceptions per participant, an extremely unhealthy proposition.
I understand flexibility is a nice thing to have, but in this case the flexibility only offers poor choices and as such I'd argue that it is simply removed.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: