What's with all the long aspaths?
Is there something silly going around? I doubt I'm the only one noticing these being triggered by our generous maxas-limit setting. Oct 9 23:01:46: %BGP-6-ASPATH: ... 27754 27754 27754 ... Oct 17 11:10:40: %BGP-6-ASPATH: ... 43413 43413 43413 ... Oct 22 06:34:09: %BGP-6-ASPATH: ... 38230 38230 38230 ... Anyone have theories as to what these networks are trying to accomplish? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Lewis | I route Senior Network Engineer | therefore you are Atlantic Net | _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________
Jon Lewis said the following on 23/10/08 12:39:
Is there something silly going around? I doubt I'm the only one noticing these being triggered by our generous maxas-limit setting.
Oct 9 23:01:46: %BGP-6-ASPATH: ... 27754 27754 27754 ... Oct 17 11:10:40: %BGP-6-ASPATH: ... 43413 43413 43413 ... Oct 22 06:34:09: %BGP-6-ASPATH: ... 38230 38230 38230 ...
Anyone have theories as to what these networks are trying to accomplish?
Theories include: - trying to make a /20 announcement more important than a component /24 by prepending the /24 out of sight (i'm not joking, some people really believe this!!) - trying to over-ride policy that their upstream provider has applied (e.g. my prepended /20 is a backup to my main /20 announcement but my upstream on the backup path is local pref-ing high to make them look more "peerable") There are bound to be other reasons... :-) philip --
On Fri, 24 Oct 2008, Philip Smith wrote:
Jon Lewis said the following on 23/10/08 12:39:
Is there something silly going around? I doubt I'm the only one noticing these being triggered by our generous maxas-limit setting.
Oct 9 23:01:46: %BGP-6-ASPATH: ... 27754 27754 27754 ... Oct 17 11:10:40: %BGP-6-ASPATH: ... 43413 43413 43413 ... Oct 22 06:34:09: %BGP-6-ASPATH: ... 38230 38230 38230 ...
Anyone have theories as to what these networks are trying to accomplish?
Theories include:
- trying to make a /20 announcement more important than a component /24 by prepending the /24 out of sight (i'm not joking, some people really believe this!!)
- trying to over-ride policy that their upstream provider has applied (e.g. my prepended /20 is a backup to my main /20 announcement but my upstream on the backup path is local pref-ing high to make them look more "peerable")
There are bound to be other reasons... :-)
My theory - some netadmin trying to see if anything bad happens when he does it. Sort of like the Darwin winner who's last words are "I wonder what would happen if I tri..." -Hank
participants (3)
-
Hank Nussbacher -
Jon Lewis -
Philip Smith