Rare project developers

[mc36 <>]

ohhh and one more thing, when this whole fwod arrived to geant, we asked for 
a flowspec peering on top of our current rtbh...
they refused because we run cisco they run junos and their support strongly 
reasoned against doing so...
and well, maybe they were right: 
https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/en/news/ip-outage-centurylink-network-caused-flowspec-mitigation-says-cloudflare-ceo/
br,
cs


On 1/30/23 18:04, mc36 wrote:
> On 1/30/23 17:11, David Schmitz wrote:
> > > well it depends what fod does internally... i also saw a whole flowspec folder
> > > full of py files in the geant repo which could nicely fit to exabgp so i have 
> > > a guess.... :)
> > Unfortunately, currently, FoD internally only supports injecting via NETCONF 
> > only.
> > (and only tested with JUNIPER routers up-to-now because lacking access to 
> > other vendors/models).
> >
> > The stuff in the ./exabgp sub folder is experimental and not integrated into 
> > the
> > Python code.
> >
> > This should change in future.
>
> well then we have two paths... if the future is in the near term then 
> flowspec all the way...
> if not, then you can start injecting to freerouter via netconf, and it can 
> convert your policy-map
> to flowspec, but...
>
> our highest end arbor detector even just injects /32 but via flowspec with 
> the addition of the extcomm to divert to dirty vrf...
>
> if your current/planned detector, be that fastnetmon or anything that already 
> supports ipv4/ipv6-unicast to the suspicious flow,
>
> freerouter have the uni2flow... this way you can overcome the limitation.... 
> moreover you can offer a community for your customers
> that youras:100 will police to 100k/lc, :200 to 200k/lc and so on... and 
> finally :666 the full rtbh... all over the same current
> unicast peerings you already have?
>
> br,
> cs