On Mon, Oct 10, 2022 at 3:37 PM Matthew Petach <mpetach@netflight.com> wrote:
They became even more huffy, insisting that we were breaking the internet by not following the correct routing for the more-specific /24s which were no longer present in our tables. No amount of trying to explain to them that they should not advertise an aggregate route if no connectivity to the more specific constituents existed seemed to get the point across. In their eyes, advertising the /24s meant that everyone should follow the more specific route to the final destination directly.
Hi Matthew, They were correct. If the /24 was reaching your network, traffic should not have been following the /20. In your version, they would have to disaggregate the /20 into 16 /24s just because you didn't want to honor most-specific path routing. That's not what anybody wants. Least of all you. One of my service providers has multiple disconnected sites. At each site they advertise the Internet's full BGP table to me -except for- the routes to their other sites. They insist they're doing the right thing but they're not. The BGP table they send me is not full, and when I need to talk to many of -their- servers my traffic ends up routing through one of my other service providers. I'm not paying them enough to make a big stink about it but if I was you can bet I'd take them to task. Regards, Bill Herrin -- For hire. https://bill.herrin.us/resume/