2001:590::/32 announced by both AS4436 (nLayer) and AS4474 (Global Village, no contact in whois, but seems to be nLayer...)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 [cc: to hostmaster@arin.net, maybe now it will get their attention instead of going into /dev/null] Hi, Here is some operational content, instead of Packet Kiddies trying to rape each other verbally ;) According to Toshikazu Saito (Powerdcom):
I know both ASs, 4436 and 4474 are yours, so nlayer should resolve this problem or respond to this.
But: OrgName: Global Village Communication, Inc. OrgID: GVC-8 Address: 1144 East Arques Avenue City: Sunnyvale StateProv: CA PostalCode: 94086 Country: US ASNumber: 4474 ASName: GVIL1 ASHandle: AS4474 Comment: The information for this ASN has been reported to Comment: be invalid. ARIN has attempted to obtain updated data, but has Comment: been unsuccessful. To provide current contact information, Comment: please e-mail hostmaster@arin.net. RegDate: 1995-03-08 Updated: 2003-07-31 The reason for the above was that we are currently seeing 2001:590::/32 announced by both AS4436 (nLayer) and AS4474 (Global Village Communication) but apparently this is the same company and apparently they are using the bogus ASN. Bogus as it has no valid contact information See telnet://grh.sixxs.net or http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/lg/?find=2001:590::/32 for the odd routes and who it goes over. As nLayer seems to be able to only send ticket responses but there seems to be no real user alive maybe it is time to start letting their peers ask them what to do with this and if they can't contact them to just start depeering? Unresponsive "NOC"'s is a real nightmare. Greets, Jeroen -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: Unfix PGP for Outlook Comment: Jeroen Massar / http://unfix.org/~jeroen/ iQBGBAERAgAQCRApqihSMz58IwUCQFb4WAAAoTsAniiZQnM0LhXbVJD7keZCNu6f CM2OAKCPs2tdOfwt49m8/xLnugqyGRMnGA== =ePKi -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Why would nlayer be now using AS4436? It is listed as scruz.net, but as far as I remember scruz was taken overy by DSL.NET (I think that even included their peering agreements) and some of their ip block such as 204.139.8.0/21, 204.147.224.0/20 and others certainly seem to confirm that. As far as AS4474, it has been well known to have been original ASN nlayer used, but it turned out to have been hijacked (done through domain reregistration), the real 'global village' is long ago gone - they were making modems and taken over by Boca Research and now I think its all part of Zoom, the only modem company that survived the .bomb. This ASN was discussed on hijacked-l about year ago and somebody thereafter reported it to ARIN (or ARIN may have done it on their own having been present there) and marked it as invalid. I thought that after this incident Nlayer would not try to go after another low-number ASN and would actually use their real arin assigned AS30371, but even 9 months after the ASN was marked invalid, they still continue to use it... [whois.arin.net] OrgName: Santa Cruz Community Internei (scruz-net) OrgID: SCCI Address: 324 Encinal Street City: Santa Cmuz StateProv: CA PostalCode: 95060 Country: US ReferralServer: rwhois://rwhois.scruz.net:4321/ ASNumber: 4436 ASName: AS-SCRUZ-NET ASHandle: AS4436 Comment: RegDate: 1995-02-17 Updated: 2004-02-24 On Tue, 16 Mar 2004, Jeroen Massar wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
[cc: to hostmaster@arin.net, maybe now it will get their attention instead of going into /dev/null]
Hi,
Here is some operational content, instead of Packet Kiddies trying to rape each other verbally ;)
According to Toshikazu Saito (Powerdcom):
I know both ASs, 4436 and 4474 are yours, so nlayer should resolve this problem or respond to this.
But:
OrgName: Global Village Communication, Inc. OrgID: GVC-8 Address: 1144 East Arques Avenue City: Sunnyvale StateProv: CA PostalCode: 94086 Country: US
ASNumber: 4474 ASName: GVIL1 ASHandle: AS4474 Comment: The information for this ASN has been reported to Comment: be invalid. ARIN has attempted to obtain updated data, but has Comment: been unsuccessful. To provide current contact information, Comment: please e-mail hostmaster@arin.net. RegDate: 1995-03-08 Updated: 2003-07-31
The reason for the above was that we are currently seeing 2001:590::/32 announced by both AS4436 (nLayer) and AS4474 (Global Village Communication) but apparently this is the same company and apparently they are using the bogus ASN. Bogus as it has no valid contact information
See telnet://grh.sixxs.net or http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/lg/?find=2001:590::/32 for the odd routes and who it goes over.
As nLayer seems to be able to only send ticket responses but there seems to be no real user alive maybe it is time to start letting their peers ask them what to do with this and if they can't contact them to just start depeering? Unresponsive "NOC"'s is a real nightmare.
Greets, Jeroen
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: Unfix PGP for Outlook Comment: Jeroen Massar / http://unfix.org/~jeroen/
iQBGBAERAgAQCRApqihSMz58IwUCQFb4WAAAoTsAniiZQnM0LhXbVJD7keZCNu6f CM2OAKCPs2tdOfwt49m8/xLnugqyGRMnGA== =ePKi -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--On Tuesday, March 16, 2004 7:52 AM -0800 "william(at)elan.net" <william@elan.net> wrote:
Why would nlayer be now using AS4436? It is listed as scruz.net, but as far as I remember scruz was taken overy by DSL.NET (I think that even included their peering agreements) and some of their ip block such as 204.139.8.0/21, 204.147.224.0/20 and others certainly seem to confirm that.
Because they acquired dsl.net's peering infrastructure, and announced such to their peers?
Brief history of AS 4436: Scruz.net was founded in 1993, and incorporated about a year later. AS 4436 was obtained in 1995 so that scruz.net could connect to MAE West. Scruz.net was acquired in 1996 by Netsource Communications who continued to operate scruz.net as a subsidiary. Netsource Communications went bankrupt in 1997. The scruz.net assets were purchased by Tycho Networks, Inc. (tycho.net) in 1998. Tycho.net added PAIX and PacBell NAP connections. Tycho Networks was acquired in 1999 by DSL.net. DSL.net added PAIX-VA, MAE ATM West, MAE ATM East, AADS NAP, and NYIIX connections. This month, DSL.net switched to an all-transit network model and the peering assets (all NAP connections, associated routers, and the AS number) were acquired by nLayer. Authority/Disclaimer: I was a founder of scruz.net, a founder of tycho.net, and am employed by DSL.net. You'll also note that I am the contact for the 'SCCI' OrgID. Some day all of the paperwork for the entire history will make its way through ARIN, and AS 4436 will be under the nLayer OrgID and the DSL.net IP addresses will be under the DSL.net OrgID. But I've learned to not hold my breath while ARIN works. Matthew Kaufman matthew@eeph.com
-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of william(at)elan.net
Why would nlayer be now using AS4436? It is listed as scruz.net, but as far as I remember scruz was taken overy by DSL.NET (I think that even included their peering agreements) and some of their ip block such as 204.139.8.0/21, 204.147.224.0/20 and others certainly seem to confirm that.
so... the subject is somewhat disingenious. there is no problem with a prefix being announced by more than one ASN. Per the original subject, this seemed to be your gripe. however, the thread has devolved into someone using network resources w/o registration... which is different.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
[cc: to hostmaster@arin.net, maybe now it will get their attention instead of going into /dev/null]
Hi,
Here is some operational content, instead of Packet Kiddies trying to rape each other verbally ;)
According to Toshikazu Saito (Powerdcom):
I know both ASs, 4436 and 4474 are yours, so nlayer should resolve this problem or respond to this.
But:
OrgName: Global Village Communication, Inc. OrgID: GVC-8 Address: 1144 East Arques Avenue City: Sunnyvale StateProv: CA PostalCode: 94086 Country: US
ASNumber: 4474 ASName: GVIL1 ASHandle: AS4474 Comment: The information for this ASN has been reported to Comment: be invalid. ARIN has attempted to obtain updated data, but has Comment: been unsuccessful. To provide current contact information, Comment: please e-mail hostmaster@arin.net. RegDate: 1995-03-08 Updated: 2003-07-31
The reason for the above was that we are currently seeing 2001:590::/32 announced by both AS4436 (nLayer) and AS4474 (Global Village Communication) but apparently this is the same company and apparently they are using the bogus ASN. Bogus as it has no valid contact information
See telnet://grh.sixxs.net or http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/lg/?find=2001:590::/32 for the odd routes and who it goes over.
As nLayer seems to be able to only send ticket responses but there seems to be no real user alive maybe it is time to start letting their peers ask them what to do with this and if they can't contact them to just start depeering? Unresponsive "NOC"'s is a real nightmare.
Greets, Jeroen
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: Unfix PGP for Outlook Comment: Jeroen Massar / http://unfix.org/~jeroen/
iQBGBAERAgAQCRApqihSMz58IwUCQFb4WAAAoTsAniiZQnM0LhXbVJD7keZCNu6f CM2OAKCPs2tdOfwt49m8/xLnugqyGRMnGA== =ePKi -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 bill [mailto:bmanning@karoshi.com] wrote:
so... the subject is somewhat disingenious. there is no problem with a prefix being announced by more than one ASN.
2001:590::/32 _is_ being announced by both AS4436 *and* AS4474. Trying to contact these ASN's to inquire why that is happening and maybe finding out if it was an erronous configuration I tried to find the contacts which lead to AS4474 not having any contact information available per ARIN registry. Thus who do you call then when AS4436 doesn't seem home? Indeed: ARIN, which also didn't seem home thus: NANOG.
Per the original subject, this seemed to be your gripe. however, the thread has devolved into someone using network resources w/o registration... which is different.
It then turned into this indeed. I have contacted quite a number of ISP's who had misconfigurations and most, except AS10318 and this one, replied and thanked for notifying them of this and they resolved the issue of which they where not aware. Greets, Jeroen -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: Unfix PGP for Outlook Comment: Jeroen Massar / http://unfix.org/~jeroen/ iQBGBAERAgAQCRApqihSMz58IwUCQFc1dgAAnAEAn1Z0I3N/N42uBJW6E7woBTJN rT+2AJ411vJQIaq4u0OoKjt/ayonOZ448A== =dZCB -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Tue, Mar 16, 2004 at 06:12:22PM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
2001:590::/32 _is_ being announced by both AS4436 *and* AS4474. Trying to contact these ASN's to inquire why that is happening and maybe finding out if it was an erronous configuration I tried to find the contacts which lead to AS4474 not having any contact information available per ARIN registry. Thus who do you call then when AS4436 doesn't seem home? Indeed: ARIN, which also didn't seem home thus: NANOG.
Next time you want to contact a noc, you might want to try not doing it as a cc: to an e-mail encouraging random peers to depeer someone because of an inconsistant origin AS caused by the use of local-as. Actions like that (and these for that matter) tend to get one branded a net kook... And feedings the kooks is never productive. :) -- Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Richard A Steenbergen [mailto:ras@e-gerbil.net] wrote:
On Tue, Mar 16, 2004 at 06:12:22PM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
2001:590::/32 _is_ being announced by both AS4436 *and* AS4474. Trying to contact these ASN's to inquire why that is happening and maybe finding out if it was an erronous configuration I tried to find the contacts which lead to AS4474 not having any contact information available per ARIN registry. Thus who do you call then when AS4436 doesn't seem home? Indeed: ARIN, which also didn't seem home thus: NANOG.
Next time you want to contact a noc, you might want to try not doing it as a cc: to an e-mail encouraging random peers to depeer someone because of an inconsistant origin AS caused by the use of local-as.
I wonder why many people are acting so hard about that small mention of it, apparently that did take enough attention while the subject at hand didn't get taken a look at at all. For your pleasure below is the complete detailed message I sent to them. If you still think that I am a 'kook' or other odd insults then please keep them to yourself. I thought NANOG was for Network Operators and not for flame wars and tidbits.
Actions like that (and these for that matter) tend to get one branded a net kook... And feedings the kooks is never productive. :)
Thank you very much for yet another insult, at least you are polite enough to do it on a public mailinglist instead of trying to mailbomb me. I still wonder why that is happening as I was and still am trying to be friendly and hoping to figure out why it is happening. FYI there are only 2 prefixes that have this currently in the entire routing table but alas. Greets, Jeroen - ---- From: Jeroen Massar <jeroen@unfix.org> To: <noc@nlayer.net>, <admin@pwd.ad.jp> Subject: 2001:590::/32 announced by both AS4436 (nLayer) and AS4474 (Global Village, no contact in whois) Hi, We are currently seeing 2001:590::/32 announced by both AS4436 (nLayer) and AS4474 (Global Village Communication) As 2001:590::/32 is assigned to nLayer I assume that AS4474 is in error. AS4474 information is apparently invalid according to ARIN whois, thus emailing their 'upstream' AS4716/Powerdcom (admin@pwd.ad.jp).
From grh.sixxs.net, see http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/ or directly: http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/lg/?find=2001:590::/32, see formatted output below.
It might be interresting for you to setup a peering with GRH so these bugs are better traceable and we can easily see that they are or are not originating from your systems. Greets, Jeroen Originated from AS4436: 2001:590::/32 > 2001:668:0:1:34:49:6900:40 1980 3257 4436 2001:590::/32 2001:468:ff:121d::2 11537 7660 2500 2497 3257 4436 2001:590::/32 2001:610:25:5062::62 1103 11537 7660 2500 2497 3257 4436 2001:590::/32 2001:688:0:1::1 5511 2500 2497 3257 4436 2001:590::/32 2001:690::10 1930 20965 11537 7660 2500 2497 3257 4436 2001:590::/32 2001:770:8:: 1213 20965 11537 7660 2500 2497 3257 4436 2001:590::/32 2001:1418:1:400::1 12779 6175 2497 3257 4436 2001:590::/32 2001:14e0::f 12931 8472 6830 4589 3257 4436 2001:590::/32 2001:6f8:800::24 4589 3257 4436 2001:590::/32 2001:7f8:1::a500:6830:1 6830 4589 3257 4436 2001:590::/32 2001:890:600:4f0::11 8447 6830 4589 3257 4436 2001:590::/32 2001:608:0:fff::6 5539 3257 4436 2001:590::/32 2001:470:1fff:3::3 6939 3257 4436 2001:590::/32 3ffe:c00:0:1::1 109 6939 3257 4436 2001:590::/32 2001:610:ff:c::2 1888 1103 3425 293 109 6939 3257 4436 2001:590::/32 2001:728:0:1000::f000 227 2914 6939 3257 4436 2001:590::/32 2001:ad0:fe:0:205:32ff:fe03:c650 3327 6939 3257 4436 2001:590::/32 3ffe:8150::1 9044 5424 6939 3257 4436 2001:590::/32 3ffe:1d00::3 5623 6939 3257 4436 2001:590::/32 2001:1888:: 6435 6939 3257 4436 2001:590::/32 3ffe:401c:0:3:20c:ceff:fe05:da0e 29657 10566 6939 3257 4436 2001:590::/32 2001:15a8:1:1::6 29449 6939 3257 4436 2001:590::/32 3ffe:401d:f00::1 30071 6939 3257 4436 2001:590::/32 3ffe:401d:f00::5 30071 6939 3257 4436 2001:590::/32 3ffe:401d:f00::9 30071 6939 3257 4436 2001:590::/32 2001:8e0:0:ffff::4 8758 3257 4436 2001:590::/32 2001:780:0:2::6 12337 3257 4436 2001:590::/32 2001:14d0:a002::1 15516 3257 4436 Originated from AS4474: 2001:590::/32 2001:6e0::2 8954 33 6939 4716 4474 2001:590::/32 3ffe:4017::1 24776 25358 3549 6939 4716 4474 2001:590::/32 2001:9c0:1:1::2:4 12902 15703 3265 3549 6939 4716 4474 2001:590::/32 2001:b18:0:5::5 25137 12859 3265 3549 6939 4716 4474 2001:590::/32 2001:960::290:6900:161:f000 12634 3265 3549 6939 4716 4474 2001:590::/32 2001:7b8::290:6900:1cc6:d800 12859 3265 3549 6939 4716 4474 2001:590::/32 2001:838:0:10::1 12871 3265 3549 6939 4716 4474 2001:590::/32 2001:888:2::1 3265 3549 6939 4716 4474 2001:590::/32 2001:7c8:2::4 2110 3549 6939 4716 4474 2001:590::/32 2001:940:0:ffff::d 12853 1752 4725 6939 4716 4474 2001:590::/32 2001:15f8:1::1 25384 1752 4725 6939 4716 4474 Notice that AS6939 peering with GRH gives AS4436 as the source but is in the path also for the AS4474 origin, this could be because they have both US and EU routers. Here is also a traceroute to the destination from AS8954 (Intouch) to AS4474: traceroute to 2001:590::1 (2001:590::1) from 3ffe:8114:2000:240:290:27ff:fe24:bbab, 30 hops max, 16 byte packets 1 purgatory.unfix.org (3ffe:8114:2000:240:290:27ff:fe24:c19f) 2.39 ms 12.517 ms 1.38 ms 2 gw-20.ams-02.nl.sixxs.net (3ffe:8114:1000::26) 28.871 ms 27.279 ms 44.073 ms 3 Amsterdam.core.ipv6.intouch.net (2001:6e0::2) 31.83 ms 36.727 ms 18.936 ms 4 3ffe:1200:1002:1::51 (3ffe:1200:1002:1::51) 173.78 ms 190.191 ms 173.511 ms 5 paix.ipv6.he.net (3ffe:80a::10) 174.883 ms 174.042 ms 186.332 ms 6 paix6.ttnet.ad.jp (3ffe:80a::e) 181.959 ms 176.632 ms 176.864 ms 7 2001:2a0:0:bb0a::1 (2001:2a0:0:bb0a::1) 279.512 ms 280.193 ms 285.993 ms 8 2001:2a0:0:bb0c::2 (2001:2a0:0:bb0c::2) 408.796 ms 405.757 ms 405.874 ms 9 * * * And from AS1213 (HeaNet) to AS4436: traceroute to 2001:590::1 (2001:590::1) from 2001:770:18:8::2, 30 hops max, 16 byte packets 1 hyperion-gige5-3-8.bh.core.hea.net (2001:770:18:8::1) 0.873 ms 0.736 ms 0.542 ms 2 deimos-gige5-1.cwt.core.hea.net (2001:770:8:c::2) 0.928 ms 0.86 ms 0.765 ms 3 heanet.ie1.ie.geant.net (2001:798:2019:10aa::1) 0.837 ms 0.817 ms 0.8 ms 4 ie.uk1.uk.geant.net (2001:798:20cc:1901:2801::2) 13.237 ms 13.28 ms 13.235 ms 5 uk.ny1.ny.geant.net (2001:798:20cc:1c01:2801::1) 81.852 ms 81.826 ms 81.848 ms 6 nycmng-esnet.abilene.ucaid.edu (2001:468:ff:15c3::1) 74.454 ms 78.638 ms 81.427 ms 7 chinng-nycmng.abilene.ucaid.edu (2001:468:ff:f15::1) 94.72 ms 94.64 ms 94.614 ms 8 iplsng-chinng.abilene.ucaid.edu (2001:468:ff:f12::2) 98.38 ms 102.578 ms 113.563 ms 9 kscyng-iplsng.abilene.ucaid.edu (2001:468:ff:1213::2) 107.457 ms 107.996 ms 111.024 ms 10 2001:468:ff:1013::1 (2001:468:ff:1013::1) 118.161 ms 122.19 ms 118.105 ms 11 2001:468:ff:1017::2 (2001:468:ff:1017::2) 142.887 ms 148.528 ms 142.843 ms 12 losang-snvang.abilene.ucaid.edu (2001:468:ff:1417::1) 150.364 ms 150.327 ms 150.359 ms 13 tpr2-transpac-la.jp.apan.net (3ffe:8140:101:1::2) 254.144 ms 254.096 ms 254.056 ms 14 hitachi1.otemachi.wide.ad.jp (2001:200:0:1800::9c4:2) 263.754 ms 263.808 ms 263.758 ms 15 pc6.otemachi.wide.ad.jp (2001:200:0:1802:2d0:b7ff:fe88:eb8a) 263.678 ms 263.705 ms 263.665 ms 16 otm6-gate1.iij.net (2001:200:0:1800::2497:1) 276.146 ms 275.19 ms 276.834 ms 17 otm6-bb0.IIJ.Net (2001:240:100:2::1) 279.463 ms 271.187 ms 275.257 ms 18 2001:504:1::a500:2497:1 (2001:504:1::a500:2497:1) 299.258 ms 271.32 ms 267.224 ms 19 ge-1-0-0.nyc10.ip6.tiscali.net (2001:504:1::a500:3257:1) 267.147 ms 270.6 ms 279.11 ms 20 so-3-0-0.nyc30.ip6.tiscali.net (2001:668:0:2::330) 285.232 ms 277.372 ms 269.647 ms 21 so-1-0-0.nyc31.ip6.tiscali.net (2001:668:0:2::1a1) 275.709 ms 267.147 ms 267.018 ms 22 so-3-0-0.ncy31.ip6.tiscali.net (2001:668:0:2::391) 290.776 ms 287.951 ms 287.956 ms 23 so-1-0-0.sjc10.ip6.tiscali.net (2001:668:0:2::1f1) 349.279 ms 352.954 ms 345.427 ms 24 * * * -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: Unfix PGP for Outlook Comment: Jeroen Massar / http://unfix.org/~jeroen/ iQBGBAERAgAQCRApqihSMz58IwUCQFdW3wAAd6gAoKsRCSYRFUnkolJqnE9R8/IN n8pXAJ453DeQN1SvMpdnGxlk2zWlhCJwwg== =F91B -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Richard A Steenbergen [mailto:ras@e-gerbil.net] wrote:
On Tue, Mar 16, 2004 at 06:12:22PM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
2001:590::/32 _is_ being announced by both AS4436 *and* AS4474. Trying to contact these ASN's to inquire why that is happening and maybe finding out if it was an erronous configuration I tried to find the contacts which lead to AS4474 not having any contact information available per ARIN registry. Thus who do you call then when AS4436 doesn't seem home? Indeed: ARIN, which also didn't seem home thus: NANOG.
Next time you want to contact a noc, you might want to try not doing it as a cc: to an e-mail encouraging random peers to depeer someone because of an inconsistant origin AS caused by the use of local-as. Actions like that (and these for that matter) tend to get one branded a net kook... And feedings the kooks is never productive. :)
The issue has been explained by a certain 'representative' in a seperate mail. Apparently they have acquired a number of networks amongst which they also AS4474 to/from which they are migrating requiring the above setup. Now let's hope that they will finish this migration soon without problems and update the registry objects in question so that in the future there can be no doubt about this even when you are on the other side of the world and nothing about such a migration is documented anywhere. Greets, Jeroen -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: Unfix PGP for Outlook Comment: Jeroen Massar / http://unfix.org/~jeroen/ iQBGBAERAgAQCRApqihSMz58IwUCQFd8VgAADnoAnRGvrYWKggDeZndSak1Pp38y SWnAAJ4x/yhN6Mf6SF7iG6mdzfTsKL16Ig== =1REM -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On 16 Mar 2004, at 12:03, bill wrote:
there is no problem with a prefix being announced by more than one ASN.
I am fairly sure that I have seen real-life issues with at least one vendor's BGP implementation which led a valid route object with one origin to be masked by another valid route object with a different origin which was learnt earlier, a masking effect that continued even after the original masking route was withdrawn. I don't have any solid documentation or results of experiments to support this, although it seemed very real at the time. It has always led me to promote the conservative practice of advertising routes with a consistent origin AS. Bill: have you done any measurement exercises to determine whether this is, in fact, an issue? Or was your comment above based on the protocol, rather than deployed implementations of the protocol? Joe
On 16 Mar 2004, at 12:03, bill wrote:
there is no problem with a prefix being announced by more than one ASN.
Bill: have you done any measurement exercises to determine whether this is, in fact, an issue? Or was your comment above based on the protocol, rather than deployed implementations of the protocol?
based on the protocol, not any specific implementation thereof.
Joe
On Tue, Mar 16, 2004 at 09:03:21AM -0800, bill wrote:
so... the subject is somewhat disingenious. there is no problem with a prefix being announced by more than one ASN. Per the original subject, this seemed to be your gripe.
Using local-as to migrate sessions individually results in the appearence of inconsistant origin ASs on locally originated routes. Who would have thought local-as would bring down the wrath of the net k00ks. :) -- Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)
participants (7)
-
bill -
Jeroen Massar -
Joe Abley -
John Payne -
Matthew Kaufman -
Richard A Steenbergen -
william(at)elan.net