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...) --Phil
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
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
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
In principle yes. But the entry level experience to BGP is pretty much none and if you dont filter their /32s and ridiculous as-paths they certainly wont.. The fact they announce /30, /32 proves they dont know what they're doing.. Are these bad destinations really worth getting to - do you need to be able to get to the 164x /30s listed below? And if everyone had proper filtering and it did affect their reachability it would be more widespread and they'd be forced to clean up their announcements. Steve On Fri, 5 Jul 2002, Phil Rosenthal wrote:
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
participants (3)
-
Pascal Gloor -
Phil Rosenthal -
Stephen J. Wilcox