Occam's Razor would suggest F5 didn't withdraw it. What they say is possible (ghosting), but not the most likely explanation. I think the burden of proof is at F5, asking to review the BGP sessions for advertised routes in their devices over shared sessions. I don't expect malice, I expect incompetence. On Tue, 3 Mar 2026 at 10:14, Hank Nussbacher via NANOG <nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:
Hi,
We had F5 announce a /24 on our behalf. We then asked F5 to withdraw that /24. Route-views showed the /24 still being announced via an F5 path. F5 claims that route-views is incorrect and the route had been properly withdrawn. They state that public route collectors (including route-views) reflect what their individual collector peers are seeing at a given moment. Due to propagation timing, peer refresh intervals, and collector update cycles, visibility across different monitoring platforms is not always perfectly synchronized in real time.
Have others seen this type of issues from route-views?
Thanks,
Hank
_______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/GF6SKJK2...
-- ++ytti