BOGON Announcement question
I'm seeing this announced at CIXP Collector: CIXP Prefix: 128.0.0.0/2 Last update time: 2007-04-27 07:36:30Z Peer: 192.65.185.140 Origin: 29222 My question is, why am I not seeing more issues because of the announcement? Is it just not propagating out of the exchange? It's been announced for a few days and only seems to appear at the exchange. jas
Collector: CIXP Prefix: 128.0.0.0/2 Last update time: 2007-04-27 07:36:30Z Peer: 192.65.185.140 Origin: 29222
My question is, why am I not seeing more issues because of the announcement?
because everyone with enough clue to watch what they receive has filters in place to prevent their hearing it? randy
On Apr 30, 2007, at 11:11 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
Collector: CIXP Prefix: 128.0.0.0/2 Last update time: 2007-04-27 07:36:30Z Peer: 192.65.185.140 Origin: 29222
My question is, why am I not seeing more issues because of the announcement?
because everyone with enough clue to watch what they receive has filters in place to prevent their hearing it?
And even if they didn't, what important IP space in that /2 is not covered by more specifics? -- TTFN, patrick
On Apr 30, 2007, at 9:15 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Apr 30, 2007, at 11:11 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
Collector: CIXP Prefix: 128.0.0.0/2 Last update time: 2007-04-27 07:36:30Z Peer: 192.65.185.140 Origin: 29222
My question is, why am I not seeing more issues because of the announcement?
because everyone with enough clue to watch what they receive has filters in place to prevent their hearing it?
And even if they didn't, what important IP space in that /2 is not covered by more specifics?
A whole lot if any of those more specific were withdrawn and the /2 were to pick up for them... -danny
On Mon, 7 May 2007, Danny McPherson wrote:
On Apr 30, 2007, at 9:15 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Apr 30, 2007, at 11:11 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
Collector: CIXP Prefix: 128.0.0.0/2 Last update time: 2007-04-27 07:36:30Z Peer: 192.65.185.140 Origin: 29222
My question is, why am I not seeing more issues because of the announcement?
because everyone with enough clue to watch what they receive has filters in place to prevent their hearing it?
And even if they didn't, what important IP space in that /2 is not covered by more specifics?
A whole lot if any of those more specific were withdrawn and the /2 were to pick up for them...
BGP routing table entry for 2.0.0.0/24, version 686581 Paths: (19 available, best #17, table Default-IP-Routing-Table) Not advertised to any peer 7018 1299 34211 41856 41856, (received-only) 12.0.1.63 from 12.0.1.63 (12.0.1.63) Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external Community: 7018:5000 what about these fun things? :)
On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 16:12:16 +0100 Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
Collector: CIXP Prefix: 128.0.0.0/2
oh. any prefix of use is longer and hence is preferred
Right. Think of it as the world's largest packet telescope. --Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
On Mon, 30 Apr 2007, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 16:12:16 +0100 Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
Collector: CIXP Prefix: 128.0.0.0/2
oh. any prefix of use is longer and hence is preferred
Right. Think of it as the world's largest packet telescope.
nah, that'd be 0/0 :)
On Mon, 30 Apr 2007, Jason Lewis wrote:
I'm seeing this announced at CIXP
Collector: CIXP Prefix: 128.0.0.0/2 Last update time: 2007-04-27 07:36:30Z Peer: 192.65.185.140 Origin: 29222
My question is, why am I not seeing more issues because of the announcement? Is it just not propagating out of the exchange? It's been announced for a few days and only seems to appear at the exchange.
It's so 'non-specific', all it's going to catch is traffic for destinations for which there is no route in the global table. i.e. it's likely nobody would notice it (nothing broken) unless looking for it. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Lewis | I route Senior Network Engineer | therefore you are Atlantic Net | _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________
On Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 11:16:03AM -0400, Jon Lewis wrote:
On Mon, 30 Apr 2007, Jason Lewis wrote:
I'm seeing this announced at CIXP
Collector: CIXP Prefix: 128.0.0.0/2 Last update time: 2007-04-27 07:36:30Z Peer: 192.65.185.140 Origin: 29222
My question is, why am I not seeing more issues because of the announcement? Is it just not propagating out of the exchange? It's been announced for a few days and only seems to appear at the exchange.
It's so 'non-specific', all it's going to catch is traffic for destinations for which there is no route in the global table. i.e. it's likely nobody would notice it (nothing broken) unless looking for it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Lewis | I route
The Ghost of Peter nee Sprint, 1995 has returned. --bill
On Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 11:16:03AM -0400, Jon Lewis wrote:
On Mon, 30 Apr 2007, Jason Lewis wrote:
I'm seeing this announced at CIXP
Collector: CIXP Prefix: 128.0.0.0/2 Last update time: 2007-04-27 07:36:30Z Peer: 192.65.185.140 Origin: 29222
My question is, why am I not seeing more issues because of the announcement?
Other than gabage hijacking, potential blackholing, or stage 2 of redirecting traffic [where stage 1 would require a total outage for the real traffic], what "more issues" would you expect?
Is it just not propagating out of the exchange? It's been announced for a few days and only seems to appear at the exchange.
Members at that exchange would be able to answer: how are they seeing it, is it NO-EXPORT tagged, etc.
It's so 'non-specific', all it's going to catch is traffic for destinations for which there is no route in the global table. i.e. it's likely nobody would notice it (nothing broken) unless looking for it.
To randy's point, folks who are caring enough to filter often have ceiling filters to prevent utter silliness. The interesting experiement would be who would propagate it if there was an IRR entry for it. route-views.oregon-ix.net>sho ip bgp 128.0.0.0/2 % Network not in table route-views.oregon-ix.net> ...so it is being stepped on appropriately by at least AS29222:AS-TRANSIT. Cheers, Joe -- RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE
participants (9)
-
bmanning＠karoshi.com -
Chris L. Morrow -
Danny McPherson -
Jason Lewis -
Joe Provo -
Jon Lewis -
Patrick W. Gilmore -
Randy Bush -
Steven M. Bellovin