route-views.oregon-ix.net>sh ip bg 203.10.63.0 BGP routing table entry for 0.0.0.0/, version 2 Paths: (1 available, best #1, table Default-IP-Routing-Table) Not advertised to any peer 286 134.222.85.45 from 134.222.85.45 (134.222.85.45) Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external, best Community: 286:286 286:3031 286:3809
At 10:29 PM 1/10/2007, you wrote:
route-views.oregon-ix.net>sh ip bg 203.10.63.0 BGP routing table entry for 0.0.0.0/, version 2 Paths: (1 available, best #1, table Default-IP-Routing-Table) Not advertised to any peer 286 134.222.85.45 from 134.222.85.45 (134.222.85.45) Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external, best Community: 286:286 286:3031 286:3809
Provided you don't do any sanity checks on what you accept from KPN, I have a feeling your traffic ratio would be highly asymmetrical. :) -Robert Tellurian Networks - Global Hosting Solutions Since 1995 http://www.tellurian.com | 888-TELLURIAN | 973-300-9211 "Well done is better than well said." - Benjamin Franklin
On Wed, 10 Jan 2007, Randy Bush wrote:
route-views.oregon-ix.net>sh ip bg 203.10.63.0 BGP routing table entry for 0.0.0.0/, version 2
do most folks setup route-views peers as a 'standard customer' or are they generally on a special purpose box with special (easy to forget about and screw up) box? -Chris
On Jan 10, 2007, at 10:54 PM, Chris L. Morrow wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jan 2007, Randy Bush wrote:
route-views.oregon-ix.net>sh ip bg 203.10.63.0 BGP routing table entry for 0.0.0.0/, version 2
do most folks setup route-views peers as a 'standard customer' or are they generally on a special purpose box with special (easy to forget about and screw up) box?
Or even a special purpose box that intentionally gives an unfiltered view? I don't think a spurious prefix directly injected into route-views is proof a network is broken. -- TTFN, patrick
I don't think a spurious prefix directly injected into route-views is proof a network is broken.
we've had this discussion 42 times. it is not proof of anything and no one has said it is. but if it was one of my areas of responsibility leaking something strange, i sure would not mind folk mentioning it here. in fact, i would be greatful. randy
On Jan 10, 2007, at 11:28 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
I don't think a spurious prefix directly injected into route-views is proof a network is broken.
we've had this discussion 42 times. it is not proof of anything and no one has said it is. but if it was one of my areas of responsibility leaking something strange, i sure would not mind folk mentioning it here. in fact, i would be greatful.
It is not proof. No one said it was. And no one said you said it was. :) That said, I would be grateful if someone showed me I screwed up too - in private. In public, I'm not so sure. Especially if someone only -thought- I screwed up. One could argue that it is difficult to reach the proper people privately (although "noc@" might be a start, or iNOC-DBA, or ...). One could also argue that public notification is better than no notification. But then one would might want to mention that private channels had been exhausted in one's public notification. Anyway, this "one" is sorry if that "one" thought one was being curmudgeonly. :) -- TTFN, patrick
On Thu, 11 January 2007 03:54:23 +0000, Chris L. Morrow wrote:
do most folks setup route-views peers as a 'standard customer' or are they generally on a special purpose box with special (easy to forget about and screw up) box?
Chris, I'd rather say one should be setting up a normal 'full feed' to routeviews as customers would get it. My view of it at least. So the question is whether this network in question is sending an absoluted unfiltered feed to rv (it seems so, look at all the routes longer than a /24 for example). Now the second question is if that is a special config or default to more than just route-views. To know that find one of the longer prefixes and see if you see it from anyone else on route-views. Go and see. Alexander, not happy
* randy@psg.com (Randy Bush) [Thu 11 Jan 2007, 04:36 CET]:
route-views.oregon-ix.net>sh ip bg 203.10.63.0 BGP routing table entry for 0.0.0.0/, version 2 Paths: (1 available, best #1, table Default-IP-Routing-Table) Not advertised to any peer 286 134.222.85.45 from 134.222.85.45 (134.222.85.45) Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external, best Community: 286:286 286:3031 286:3809
I'm a KPN peer and I don't get this route. It looks like they give a full view to the R-V project's router. I don't think this is special in any way whatsoever. If you want to peer with KPN, you should join an IXP they maintain a presence at. (In fact, I suspect that you already peer with them.) -- Niels.
Randy Bush wrote:
route-views.oregon-ix.net>sh ip bg 203.10.63.0 BGP routing table entry for 0.0.0.0/, version 2 Paths: (1 available, best #1, table Default-IP-Routing-Table) Not advertised to any peer 286 134.222.85.45 from 134.222.85.45 (134.222.85.45) Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external, best Community: 286:286 286:3031 286:3809
Well, if you take a look at the communities here, from what they publish in the text of the AS286 AUT-NUM object in the RIPE database: 286:286 Customer routes 286:3031 Customer in Amsterdam 286:3089 No description I've no idea what 286:3089 is since its not described but it appears that all prefixes tagged with 286:3089 have 286 as the origin. Taking a look at these they appear to be customers. So it could be that these are prefixes that do not belong to KPN but are advertised by KPN themselves (or rather, with KPN as the origin) probably because the customer in question does not have an ASN (or at least a non-private ASN) So its entirely possible this could be a leak of a default from a private ASN customer that KPN carried in their backbone. Of course, since they are providing RV a full feed, not the same as they would to their peers, this should not be a problem for anybody else except KPN (and their customer). The sensible thing to have done would be to have informed KPN privately. Dave.
participants (7)
-
Alexander Koch -
Chris L. Morrow -
David Freedman -
Niels Bakker -
Patrick W. Gilmore -
Randy Bush -
Robert Boyle