route-views.oregon-ix.net>sh ip bg 192.169.0.0 BGP routing table entry for 192.169.0.0/16, version 51241382 Paths: (1 available, best #1, table Default-IP-Routing-Table, not advertised to EBGP peer) Not advertised to any peer 14608 4323 209.161.175.4 from 209.161.175.4 (209.161.175.4) Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external, best Community: no-export 'cept they don't own it
On Fri, 3 Jun 2005, Randy Bush wrote:
route-views.oregon-ix.net>sh ip bg 192.169.0.0 BGP routing table entry for 192.169.0.0/16, version 51241382 Paths: (1 available, best #1, table Default-IP-Routing-Table, not advertised to EBGP peer) Not advertised to any peer 14608 4323 209.161.175.4 from 209.161.175.4 (209.161.175.4) Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external, best Community: no-export
'cept they don't own it
Time warner carrying a /16 instead of all the /24's and accidently leaking this? 'route filter mistake' ?
route-views.oregon-ix.net>sh ip bg 192.169.0.0 BGP routing table entry for 192.169.0.0/16, version 51241382 Paths: (1 available, best #1, table Default-IP-Routing-Table, not advertised to EBGP peer) Not advertised to any peer 14608 4323 209.161.175.4 from 209.161.175.4 (209.161.175.4) Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external, best Community: no-export 'cept they don't own it Time warner carrying a /16 instead of all the /24's and accidently leaking this? 'route filter mistake' ?
but they don't own the space!!! % whois -h whois.arin.net 192.169.0.0 OrgName: RGnet, LLC OrgID: RGNETI-1 Address: 5147 Crystal Springs Drive NE City: Bainbridge Island StateProv: WA PostalCode: 98110 Country: US NetRange: 192.169.0.0 - 192.169.1.255 CIDR: 192.169.0.0/23 NetName: PSG169 NetHandle: NET-192-169-0-0-1 Parent: NET-192-0-0-0-0 NetType: Direct Assignment NameServer: PSG.COM NameServer: NS0.REM.COM Comment: RegDate: 2005-04-12 Updated: 2005-04-12 TechHandle: RB366-ARIN TechName: Bush, Randy TechPhone: +1-206-780-0431 TechEmail: randy@psg.com OrgTechHandle: RB366-ARIN OrgTechName: Bush, Randy OrgTechPhone: +1-206-780-0431 OrgTechEmail: randy@psg.com thank you very much! randy
On Fri, 3 Jun 2005, Randy Bush wrote:
route-views.oregon-ix.net>sh ip bg 192.169.0.0 BGP routing table entry for 192.169.0.0/16, version 51241382 Paths: (1 available, best #1, table Default-IP-Routing-Table, not advertised to EBGP peer) Not advertised to any peer 14608 4323 209.161.175.4 from 209.161.175.4 (209.161.175.4) Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external, best Community: no-export 'cept they don't own it Time warner carrying a /16 instead of all the /24's and accidently leaking this? 'route filter mistake' ?
but they don't own the space!!!
agreed, they don't own the space. I was supposing they were doing what SwissCom does: Announce /8's or /<largeenoughtonotbotherpeople> routes for currently allocated space, drop announcements inside these except those required to talk to their customers. Hopefully set these no-export so they don't leak outside of 4323. So, given that hypothesis they just have a broken filter somewhere... of course I could be wrong... but I hope I'm not.
% whois -h whois.arin.net 192.169.0.0
OrgName: RGnet, LLC OrgID: RGNETI-1 Address: 5147 Crystal Springs Drive NE City: Bainbridge Island StateProv: WA PostalCode: 98110 Country: US
NetRange: 192.169.0.0 - 192.169.1.255 CIDR: 192.169.0.0/23 NetName: PSG169 NetHandle: NET-192-169-0-0-1 Parent: NET-192-0-0-0-0 NetType: Direct Assignment NameServer: PSG.COM NameServer: NS0.REM.COM Comment: RegDate: 2005-04-12 Updated: 2005-04-12
TechHandle: RB366-ARIN TechName: Bush, Randy TechPhone: +1-206-780-0431 TechEmail: randy@psg.com
OrgTechHandle: RB366-ARIN OrgTechName: Bush, Randy OrgTechPhone: +1-206-780-0431 OrgTechEmail: randy@psg.com
thank you very much!
randy
On Fri, 3 Jun 2005, Randy Bush wrote:
OrgName: RGnet, LLC OrgID: RGNETI-1 Address: 5147 Crystal Springs Drive NE City: Bainbridge Island
NetRange: 192.169.0.0 - 192.169.1.255 CIDR: 192.169.0.0/23 TechHandle: RB366-ARIN TechName: Bush, Randy TechPhone: +1-206-780-0431 TechEmail: randy@psg.com
So, what'd they say when you called their NOC? Alot of the space in this /16 isn't assigned to any ARIN member. I've got this route in our TWT transit BGP feed. BGP routing table entry for 192.169.0.0/16, version 17612444 Paths: (1 available, best #1, table Default-IP-Routing-Table) Advertised to update-groups: 1 4323 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Lewis | I route Senior Network Engineer | therefore you are Atlantic Net | _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________
On Fri, 3 Jun 2005, Randy Bush wrote:
route-views.oregon-ix.net>sh ip bg 192.169.0.0 BGP routing table entry for 192.169.0.0/16, version 51241382 Paths: (1 available, best #1, table Default-IP-Routing-Table, not advertised to EBGP peer) Not advertised to any peer 14608 4323 209.161.175.4 from 209.161.175.4 (209.161.175.4) Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external, best Community: no-export 'cept they don't own it Time warner carrying a /16 instead of all the /24's and accidently leaking this? 'route filter mistake' ?
but they don't own the space!!!
more grist for your mill: route-server>sho ip route | inc 192.169 B 66.192.169.0/24 [200/0] via 168.215.52.9, 7w0d B 192.169.41.0/24 [200/0] via 168.215.52.71, 17:33:51 B 192.169.38.0/24 [200/0] via 168.215.52.71, 6d07h B 192.169.4.0/24 [200/0] via 168.215.52.71, 2w4d B 192.169.39.0/24 [200/0] via 168.215.52.102, 6d16h B 211.192.169.0/24 [200/0] via 168.215.52.9, 2d16h B 192.169.35.0/24 [200/0] via 168.215.52.71, 6d07h B 192.169.2.0/24 [200/0] via 168.215.52.71, 2w4d B 192.169.3.0/24 [200/0] via 168.215.52.71, 2w4d B 192.169.40.0/23 [200/0] via 168.215.52.71, 17:33:58 B 192.169.36.0/23 [200/0] via 168.215.52.71, 6d07h B 192.169.0.0/16 [200/0] via 168.215.52.102, 7w0d B 192.169.32.0/22 [200/0] via 168.215.52.71, 6d07h route-server>sho ip int bri Interface IP-Address OK? Method Status Protocol FastEthernet0/0 66.162.47.58 YES manual up up Loopback0 unassigned YES NVRAM up up TWT has a route-server (from traceroute.org's listings) note the age of this route: B 192.169.0.0/16 [200/0] via 168.215.52.102, 7w0d
more grist for your mill:
route-server>sho ip route | inc 192.169 B 66.192.169.0/24 [200/0] via 168.215.52.9, 7w0d B 192.169.41.0/24 [200/0] via 168.215.52.71, 17:33:51 B 192.169.38.0/24 [200/0] via 168.215.52.71, 6d07h B 192.169.4.0/24 [200/0] via 168.215.52.71, 2w4d B 192.169.39.0/24 [200/0] via 168.215.52.102, 6d16h B 211.192.169.0/24 [200/0] via 168.215.52.9, 2d16h B 192.169.35.0/24 [200/0] via 168.215.52.71, 6d07h B 192.169.2.0/24 [200/0] via 168.215.52.71, 2w4d B 192.169.3.0/24 [200/0] via 168.215.52.71, 2w4d B 192.169.40.0/23 [200/0] via 168.215.52.71, 17:33:58 B 192.169.36.0/23 [200/0] via 168.215.52.71, 6d07h B 192.169.0.0/16 [200/0] via 168.215.52.102, 7w0d B 192.169.32.0/22 [200/0] via 168.215.52.71, 6d07h route-server>sho ip int bri Interface IP-Address OK? Method Status Protocol FastEthernet0/0 66.162.47.58 YES manual up up Loopback0 unassigned YES NVRAM up up
TWT has a route-server (from traceroute.org's listings) note the age of this route: B 192.169.0.0/16 [200/0] via 168.215.52.102, 7w0d
i don't get it. this is supposed to be a good thing. am i supposed to just announce the 200+ /8s that cover the net, figuring anyone who has space will announce their longer prefix? tricky stuff sits and waits to backfire on one. so the older and lazier of us tend to play as close to the straight and narrow as we can to get the job done. randy
On Fri, 3 Jun 2005, Randy Bush wrote:
more grist for your mill:
TWT has a route-server (from traceroute.org's listings) note the age of this route: B 192.169.0.0/16 [200/0] via 168.215.52.102, 7w0d
i don't get it. this is supposed to be a good thing.
am i supposed to just announce the 200+ /8s that cover the net, figuring anyone who has space will announce their longer prefix?
tricky stuff sits and waits to backfire on one. so the older and lazier of us tend to play as close to the straight and narrow as we can to get the job done.
So, I'm not condoning this at all, just offering a possible explanation... As was explained at one time on this list I think? Some folks will, in favor of holding a complete 150k+ routes, hold large enough covering routes internally and not most of the the smaller routes to save memory. Something like 'almost default'... it confused me and it caused me some pain so it seems like a bad thing. This seems to re-enforce that idea. (to me atleast). Perhaps someone will fix it? Where is the route leaking from TWTC in the first place? A customer or ? Apparently only 14608 sees it at route-views? Is alaska fiberstar listening tonight? a random sample of routerservers off traceroute.org shows no one else with this route...
Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
On Fri, 3 Jun 2005, Randy Bush wrote:
more grist for your mill:
TWT has a route-server (from traceroute.org's listings) note the age of this route: B 192.169.0.0/16 [200/0] via 168.215.52.102, 7w0d
i don't get it. this is supposed to be a good thing.
am i supposed to just announce the 200+ /8s that cover the net, figuring anyone who has space will announce their longer prefix?
tricky stuff sits and waits to backfire on one. so the older and lazier of us tend to play as close to the straight and narrow as we can to get the job done.
So, I'm not condoning this at all, just offering a possible explanation... As was explained at one time on this list I think? Some folks will, in favor of holding a complete 150k+ routes, hold large enough covering routes internally and not most of the the smaller routes to save memory. Something like 'almost default'... it confused me and it caused me some pain so it seems like a bad thing. This seems to re-enforce that idea. (to me atleast).
Perhaps someone will fix it? Where is the route leaking from TWTC in the first place? A customer or ? Apparently only 14608 sees it at route-views? Is alaska fiberstar listening tonight? a random sample of routerservers off traceroute.org shows no one else with this route...
As you can see from the website http://www.alaskafiberstar.com they don't have any IP operations info available. My guess is that they out-sourced IP operations as they filed bankruptcy in 2001. figures Dee
On Fri, 3 Jun 2005, W.D.McKinney wrote:
Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
Perhaps someone will fix it? Where is the route leaking from TWTC in the first place? A customer or ? Apparently only 14608 sees it at route-views? Is alaska fiberstar listening tonight? a random sample of routerservers off traceroute.org shows no one else with this route...
As you can see from the website http://www.alaskafiberstar.com they don't have any IP operations info available. My guess is that they out-sourced IP operations as they filed bankruptcy in 2001. figures
oh well... back to twtc to see why they are leaking this route to their customer :(
"Christopher L. Morrow" <christopher.morrow@mci.com> writes:
route-server>sho ip route | inc 192.169 B 66.192.169.0/24 [200/0] via 168.215.52.9, 7w0d [...] B 192.169.0.0/16 [200/0] via 168.215.52.102, 7w0d
route-views.oregon-ix.net>sh ip bg 66.192.169.0 BGP routing table entry for 66.192.169.0/24, version 51229407 Paths: (1 available, best #1, table Default-IP-Routing-Table, not advertised to EBGP peer) Not advertised to any peer 14608 4323 209.161.175.4 from 209.161.175.4 (209.161.175.4) Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external, best Community: no-export 66.192.0.0/14 is TWTC. Relevant? << 8? -dan
participants (5)
-
Christopher L. Morrow -
Dan Riley -
Jon Lewis -
Randy Bush -
W.D.McKinney