On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 11:44 AM holow29 <holow29@gmail.com> wrote:
I would expect Verizon to be able to contact CT and figure out why they aren't passing the correct routes just as I might expect Baidu to do the same thing, I suppose. Ultimately,
You seem to be misunderstanding the relationship here... Baidu is a CUSTOMER of VZ/701 VZ's only responsibility here is to provide reachabilty to the routes which Baidu announces to VZ. There's no reason VZ should believe anything other than the fact that Baidu is not sending the particular prefix (or covering routes) to VZ 'today'.. for reasons which are entirely Baidu's. whose responsibility is it other than CT? That is my question. Maybe in
this instance, it is common in the industry for this to be the responsibility of Baidu. That seems counterintuitive to me as it is Verizon without the proper route ultimately, but I am not an expert.
The person announcing the routes (or not) is the one who makes the decision to do so... There's, of course, a possibility that VZ (or any isp instead of VZ in this particular case) has decided to filter certain prefixes from Baidu's peering, but that's not generally the case for ISPs... Note: there are no ROA for the /24 in question, but Baidu does claim they may announce: 182.61.200.0/22 according to IRR data...
Certainly, I think it is incorrect to ask the customer to try to resolve these issues after bringing it to the attention of these services. If Verizon couldn't reach one of Google's edge servers, would it be Verizon or Google's responsibility to fix that if the issue were an intermediate peer failing to broadcase the correct route? I have the sneaking suspicion that Verizon might actually take some action in that instance...
you have misunderstood the customer/provider relationship I suspect.
On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 9:31 AM Tom Beecher <beecher@beecher.cc> wrote:
Unfortunately it seems like policy that Verizon pushes any issues that
aren't internal routing issues to an external party, but surely they have a responsibility to maintain their peering and routes to external services as well.
Baidu is behind CT. If CT is not passing on routes to 701 , what exactly do you expect Verizon to do about it?
On Wed, Jul 20, 2022 at 6:40 PM holow29 <holow29@gmail.com> wrote:
To follow up on this: I've engaged Verizon's executive office to finally try to get to a network engineer (because I don't have a contact myself). The (proxied) response from the engineer was that they aren't receiving any announcements for these routes to AS701, and I would need to take it up with Baidu. I guess I would like to understand if that seems reasonable to people since it is my presumption that Baidu would return and say something similar (that they advertise their routes to their peers correctly and to take it up with Verizon). To me, it seems like there is clearly a failing in one of Verizon's peers where they are not advertising or accepting this route correctly, but that it would be incumbent on Verizon to do the legwork to fix it since they are the ones who know their peering agreements and have these contacts. Unfortunately it seems like policy that Verizon pushes any issues that aren't internal routing issues to an external party, but surely they have a responsibility to maintain their peering and routes to external services as well. In other words, this type of buckpassing does not seem right to me (and I've heard it from them on other routing issues before), especially given that they are the ones empowered to fix it. Any thoughts?
(As it happens, pan.baidu.com now resolves to an IP range that is routable by Verizon, but it could always revert, and it seems like Verizon should have these routes regardless.)
Thanks.
On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 7:41 AM Matthew Huff <mhuff@ox.com> wrote:
From my limited vantage point it appears that there is some issue between Verizon & Baidu. Baidu has 182.61.0.0/16 registered, but is only advertising pieces of it globally (or at least from what I can see). In our tables,we are receiving none from Verizon of the subnets that are advertised directly from Baidu (origin AS of 38365). The few within that registered range that have a different origin AS are coming to us from Verizon. For example:
*> 182.61.0.0/19 144.121.203.141 0 46887 3356 4134 58466 38365 i
*> 182.61.0.0/18 144.121.203.141 0 46887 6461 4134 58466 38365 38365 i
*> 182.61.32.0/19 144.121.203.141 0 46887 3356 4134 58466 38365 i
*> 182.61.64.0/18 204.148.121.221 0 701 6453 55967 i
* 182.61.128.0/23 204.148.121.221 0 701 4134 4134 4134 4134 4134 58540 ?
*> 182.61.130.0/24 144.121.203.141 0 46887 6461 4134 23724 38365 38365 38365 i
*> 182.61.130.0/23 144.121.203.141 0 46887 6461 4134 58466 38365 38365 i
*> 182.61.131.0/24 144.121.203.141 0 46887 6461 4134 23724 38365 38365 38365 i
*> 182.61.132.0/23 144.121.203.141 0 46887 3356 4134 58466 38365 i
*> 182.61.132.0/22 144.121.203.141 0 46887 6461 4134 58466 38365 38365 i
*> 182.61.134.0/23 144.121.203.141 0 46887 3356 4134 58466 38365 i
*> 182.61.136.0/22 144.121.203.141 0 46887 3356 4134 58466 38365 i
*> 182.61.136.0/21 144.121.203.141 0 46887 6461 4134 58466 38365 38365 i
*> 182.61.140.0/22 144.121.203.141 0 46887 3356 4134 58466 38365 i
*> 182.61.144.0/21 144.121.203.141 0 46887 3356 4134 58466 38365 i
*> 182.61.144.0/20 144.121.203.141 0 46887 6461 4134 58466 38365 38365 i
*> 182.61.160.0/19 204.148.121.221 0 701 6453 55967 i
*> 182.61.192.0/23 144.121.203.141 0 46887 3356 4134 58540 i
*> 182.61.194.0/23 144.121.203.141 0 46887 3356 4134 58540 i
*> 182.61.200.0/22 144.121.203.141 0 46887 6461 4134 23724 38365 i
*> 182.61.200.0/21 144.121.203.141 0 46887 6461 4134 58466 38365 38365 i
*> 182.61.216.0/21 144.121.203.141 0 46887 6461 4134 58466 38365 38365 i
*> 182.61.223.0/24 144.121.203.141 0 46887 6461 4134 58466 38365 38365 i
*> 182.61.224.0/19 144.121.203.141 0 46887 6461 4134 58466 38365 38365 i
We are getting the 182.61.200.0/21 and 182.61.200.0/22 from all of our other peers:
asr-inet2#sh ip bgp 182.61.200.0/21
BGP routing table entry for 182.61.200.0/21, version 15779018
Paths: (2 available, best #2, table default)
Advertised to update-groups:
3
Refresh Epoch 1
54004 6128 1299 4134 58466 38365 38365, (aggregated by 38365 119.75.208.225)
148.77.99.201 from 148.77.99.201 (24.157.4.25)
Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external, atomic-aggregate
rx pathid: 0, tx pathid: 0
Updated on Apr 29 2022 21:02:05 EDT
Refresh Epoch 1
46887 6461 4134 58466 38365 38365, (aggregated by 38365 119.75.208.225)
129.77.17.254 from 129.77.17.254 (129.77.40.7)
Origin IGP, metric 0, localpref 100, valid, internal, atomic-aggregate, best
rx pathid: 0, tx pathid: 0x0
Updated on May 3 2022 04:02:50 EDT
*From:* NANOG <nanog-bounces+mhuff=ox.com@nanog.org> *On Behalf Of * holow29 *Sent:* Thursday, June 23, 2022 5:49 PM *To:* nanog@nanog.org *Subject:* Verizon no BGP route to some of AS38365 (182.61.200.0/24)
I've been trying (to no avail) for over a month now to get Verizon to investigate their lack of BGP routing to 182.61.200.0/24, which hosts Baidu Wangpan at pan.baidu.com (Baidu's cloud services/equivalent of Google Drive).
Easily verified through Verizon's Looking Glass.
We all know Verizon's BGP routing is a disaster, but does anyone have any ideas?