Joe, Yes - this is indeed not optimal. To keep routing tables manageable, BGP announcements should be aggregated into a shorter prefix such as /20 or /19 (whatever is possible). Many autonomous systems accidentally leak longer announcements for various reasons; accurate filtering can eliminate these mistakes. It looks like the autonomous system from your email is redistributing connected routes - you can start by contacting the originating autonomous system. Hope this helps. CF -----Original Message----- From: Joe Shaw [mailto:jshaw@insync.net] Sent: Thursday, November 11, 1999 3:58 PM To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: PSI/Digex announcements I have a non peering T1 to PSI for VPN customers. While troubleshooting some problems for one of those VPN customers I came across these: HOUSTON_BR1#show ip bgp regex ^174$ Network Next Hop Metric LocPrf Weight Path *> 12.15.224.192/27 38.7.128.1 200 174 i *> 154.32.255.0/30 38.7.128.1 200 174 i *> 192.245.179.248/30 38.7.128.1 200 174 i *> 198.17.203.0/25 38.7.128.1 200 174 i *> 198.137.240.32/27 38.7.128.1 200 174 i *> 198.207.208.192/27 38.7.128.1 200 174 iA *> 204.4.196.32/27 38.7.128.1 200 174 i *> 204.4.196.64/27 38.7.128.1 200 174 i *> 204.4.196.96/27 38.7.128.1 200 174 i *> 204.68.218.0/27 38.7.128.1 200 174 i *> 204.180.67.160/27 38.7.128.1 200 174 i *> 206.181.125.188/30 38.7.128.1 0 200 174 i *> 206.119.241.96/27 38.7.128.1 200 174 i *> 207.37.154.120/29 38.7.128.1 200 174 i *> 207.138.126.128/27 38.7.128.1 200 174 i Isn't it considered "bad" to be announcing nets that small, especially the /30's? -- Joseph W. Shaw - jshaw@insync.net Free UNIX advocate - "I hack, therefore I am."