Take a watch on this route:
show route 195.128.231.0/24 detail [..omitted..] AS path: AS2 PA[5]: 39792 35320 AS_TRANS AS_TRANS 35748 AS path: AS4 PA[4]: 35320 3.21 AS_TRANS 35748 AS path: Merged[5]: 39792 35320 3.21 AS_TRANS 35748 I [...omitted...]
AS4_PATH contain AS_TRANS, it's also RFC violation, isn't it ?
Agreed, that sounds wrong. However, that's not how the route appears from here: show route 195.128.231.0/24 detail | match "AS path: [0-9AM]" AS path: 9002 13249 13249 13249 6886 196629 35748 I AS path: 9002 13249 13249 13249 6886 196629 35748 I AS path: AS2 PA[5]: 3356 13249 6886 AS_TRANS 35748 AS path: AS4 PA[4]: 13249 6886 196629 35748 AS path: Merged[5]: 3356 13249 6886 196629 35748 I AS path: AS2 PA[6]: 1299 3356 13249 6886 AS_TRANS 35748 AS path: AS4 PA[4]: 13249 6886 196629 35748 AS path: Merged[6]: 1299 3356 13249 6886 196629 35748 I So in our case the AS4 path seems normal. Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug@nethelp.no