David J. Hughes wrote:

This is something discussed a while back, how to deal with those who insert more specifics, right? This was also mentioned as neccessary to avoid the loophole in Team Cymru bogons, correct? Also mentioned as a way to minimize potential ipv6 table size with geographic/ISP consolidation?

I am sure this should be of interest to many. However, I have no first-hand interest in this at the moment. It is something that interests me because it will mean that the routers I run bgp on in 5 years wont need a Gig of ram just for the tables.

Others may have more specific immediate term goals they wish to make possible.

Now I am going out on a limb here, for I am hardly a BGP expert, but since those who believe they may be viewed as madmen have already posted, the way is now clear for those like me, who surely are.

The problem is more that you do not wish the neighbors to propogate the more specifics. Let them keep them, as not best. You could have a global BGP switch or neighbor switch or route map statement that amounts to

do-not-advertise-more-specifics ? same-as-path same-med ... <cr>

neighbor X.X.X.X remote-as YYYY do-not-advertise-more-specifics ? same-as-path same-med same-something ... <cr>

Perhaps also needed it a statement like this

do-not-accept-more-specifics

agani per neighbor, global or set in a route-map.

When the neighbor's peer drops the least specific, the decision process on the neighbor will run and THAT is when the more specific will get advertised to its peers and show up on almost everybodies tables.

This will allow Sites to do traffic engineering to their hearts content.

True this will do little to solve BGP hijacking problems, but I do not think encouraging people to announce routes as prevention for that sort of thing is desirable.

A local solution to a global problem. Now it is only your peers who carry your more specific routes.