We do already filter on egress. I don't want to filter on ingress because I think it's more important that my customers can reach their destinations than teaching these stupid admins a lesson. --Phil -----Original Message----- From: Stephen J. Wilcox [mailto:steve@opaltelecom.co.uk] Sent: Friday, July 05, 2002 4:33 AM To: Pascal Gloor Cc: pr@isprime.com; nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: BGP Pollution filter bogon, long prefixes, long as-path ingress and egress! and dont say "we do already" as clearly the routes are still coming thro! Steve On Fri, 5 Jul 2002, Pascal Gloor wrote:
Network Next Hop Metric LocPrf Weight Path *>i203.168.78.0 66.230.128.97 40 100 0 2914
6453
4755 4755 4755 4755 4755 4755 17632 17632 17632 17632 17632 17632 17632 17632 17632 17632 17632 i *>i217.220.42.0 66.230.128.97 40 100 0 2914 1239 1267 21164 21164 21164 21164 21164 21164 21164 21164 21164 21164 21164 21164 21164 21164 21164 21164 21164 21164 21164 21164 21164 21164 21164 21164 21164 I
Is there any possible excuse for such ugly looking as-paths? (these are the worst offenders, but there are plenty more that are still really bad...)
some more?
I see 32 /32, 1 /31 and 164 /30 !!!! Source, SwiNOG RouteViewer.
http://tools.swinog.ch/wwwbin/compare-bgp?type=mask&mask=32 http://tools.swinog.ch/wwwbin/compare-bgp?type=mask&mask=31 http://tools.swinog.ch/wwwbin/compare-bgp?type=mask&mask=30
We all think /29 in BGP is kinda bad, but first of all lets get rid of
the /32 /31 and /30 ;-P