<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic BGP TCP protocol filter/ACL needed? in ExtremeSwitching (EXOS/Switch Engine)</title>
    <link>https://community.extremenetworks.com/t5/extremeswitching-exos-switch/bgp-tcp-protocol-filter-acl-needed/m-p/62211#M17864</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;BGP is working fine. I have a VR that’s happily peering with peers. Running EXOS 16.2.5.4 on a BD8800&lt;/P&gt; &lt;P&gt;The “problem” is, that this VR handles several connected VLANs, plays default gateway for those vlans/networks. Now someone on the corporate security team went to shodan.io, typed in one of the IPs of a vlan that’s on that VR (not the vlan that has BGP peers), and shodan tells them that, yes, TCP port 179 does listen and declined the connection.&lt;BR /&gt; While I’m OK with that, “Corporate” doesn’t like the fact that it answers to BGP at all.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt; Now, is there a way for me to disable BGP on a per-vlan basis (which I doubt)? I know I could craft some ACL that drops all TCP port 179 packets unless they come from a valid peer, IPv4 and IPv6, but I wonder how “expensive” that is in terms of CPU/throughput, or what to best apply such an ACL to.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt; Any insights would be much appreciated!&lt;BR /&gt; &amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt; &lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 26 Feb 2020 18:41:07 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Frank</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2020-02-26T18:41:07Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>BGP TCP protocol filter/ACL needed?</title>
      <link>https://community.extremenetworks.com/t5/extremeswitching-exos-switch/bgp-tcp-protocol-filter-acl-needed/m-p/62211#M17864</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;BGP is working fine. I have a VR that’s happily peering with peers. Running EXOS 16.2.5.4 on a BD8800&lt;/P&gt; &lt;P&gt;The “problem” is, that this VR handles several connected VLANs, plays default gateway for those vlans/networks. Now someone on the corporate security team went to shodan.io, typed in one of the IPs of a vlan that’s on that VR (not the vlan that has BGP peers), and shodan tells them that, yes, TCP port 179 does listen and declined the connection.&lt;BR /&gt; While I’m OK with that, “Corporate” doesn’t like the fact that it answers to BGP at all.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt; Now, is there a way for me to disable BGP on a per-vlan basis (which I doubt)? I know I could craft some ACL that drops all TCP port 179 packets unless they come from a valid peer, IPv4 and IPv6, but I wonder how “expensive” that is in terms of CPU/throughput, or what to best apply such an ACL to.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt; Any insights would be much appreciated!&lt;BR /&gt; &amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt; &lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Feb 2020 18:41:07 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.extremenetworks.com/t5/extremeswitching-exos-switch/bgp-tcp-protocol-filter-acl-needed/m-p/62211#M17864</guid>
      <dc:creator>Frank</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2020-02-26T18:41:07Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

