Yes, it appears Qwest was leaking routes, but they are fixing it...
Its always so much fun to watch billion dollar companies dance around the issues. Qwest's spokesperson could not confirm nor deny any problem, and even if such a problem existed considered it a confidential matter. On the other hand, C&W received top billing on the news story, probally because they were one of the few providers to actually give any information to the public and reporters. Grrr. I'm not a big fan of C&W, what are your peering requirements this week?; but I don't like to see providers getting zinged for being open about network issues. However the root cause is a very old issue. It takes two to create a route leak. One to announce the erroronous route, and one to listen to the erronous route. The proper router filters on either side of the connection would mitigate the problem. Everyone knows the basic issues. 1) cisco routers can't hold the extremely large access-lists required to fully filter peer-to-peer connections between large providers. 2) some providers don't make available the information needed to accurately verify their routing information. 3) review the archives. -- Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Affiliation given for identification not representation
On Mon, 26 Oct 1998, Sean Donelan wrote:
Yes, it appears Qwest was leaking routes, but they are fixing it...
Am I just silly to assume that it shouldn't take so long for such well-funded companies to communicate with each other? AS286 is EUNet, right? This all started sometime yesterday... I still see this: BGP routing table entry for 206.97.128.0/19, version 10233204 Paths: (1 available, best #1) 3847 1239 1800 209 286 3561 207.240.48.45 from 207.240.48.45 (207.240.48.1) Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external, best This is a C&W customer. Now I'm single-homed, so I'm no BGP expert, but I think this is telling me that EUNet is claiming to be in the path here. How can it possibly take so long to work something like this out? Charles
Its always so much fun to watch billion dollar companies dance around the issues.
Qwest's spokesperson could not confirm nor deny any problem, and even if such a problem existed considered it a confidential matter.
On the other hand, C&W received top billing on the news story, probally because they were one of the few providers to actually give any information to the public and reporters. Grrr. I'm not a big fan of C&W, what are your peering requirements this week?; but I don't like to see providers getting zinged for being open about network issues.
However the root cause is a very old issue. It takes two to create a route leak. One to announce the erroronous route, and one to listen to the erronous route. The proper router filters on either side of the connection would mitigate the problem. Everyone knows the basic issues. 1) cisco routers can't hold the extremely large access-lists required to fully filter peer-to-peer connections between large providers. 2) some providers don't make available the information needed to accurately verify their routing information. 3) review the archives. -- Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Affiliation given for identification not representation
=-----------------= = | Charles Sprickman Internet Channel | | INCH System Administration Team (212)243-5200 | | spork@inch.com access@inch.com | = =----------------=
Sorry about that, Sean didn't write the snippet here, he wrote the one below my post... Charles
On Mon, 26 Oct 1998, Sean Donelan wrote:
Yes, it appears Qwest was leaking routes, but they are fixing it...
Am I just silly to assume that it shouldn't take so long for such well-funded companies to communicate with each other? AS286 is EUNet, right? This all started sometime yesterday... I still see this:
BGP routing table entry for 206.97.128.0/19, version 10233204 Paths: (1 available, best #1) 3847 1239 1800 209 286 3561 207.240.48.45 from 207.240.48.45 (207.240.48.1) Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external, best
This is a C&W customer. Now I'm single-homed, so I'm no BGP expert, but I think this is telling me that EUNet is claiming to be in the path here. How can it possibly take so long to work something like this out?
Charles
Its always so much fun to watch billion dollar companies dance around the issues.
Qwest's spokesperson could not confirm nor deny any problem, and even if such a problem existed considered it a confidential matter.
On the other hand, C&W received top billing on the news story, probally because they were one of the few providers to actually give any information to the public and reporters. Grrr. I'm not a big fan of C&W, what are your peering requirements this week?; but I don't like to see providers getting zinged for being open about network issues.
However the root cause is a very old issue. It takes two to create a route leak. One to announce the erroronous route, and one to listen to the erronous route. The proper router filters on either side of the connection would mitigate the problem. Everyone knows the basic issues. 1) cisco routers can't hold the extremely large access-lists required to fully filter peer-to-peer connections between large providers. 2) some providers don't make available the information needed to accurately verify their routing information. 3) review the archives. -- Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Affiliation given for identification not representation
=-----------------= = | Charles Sprickman Internet Channel | | INCH System Administration Team (212)243-5200 | | spork@inch.com access@inch.com | = =----------------=
=-----------------= = | Charles Sprickman Internet Channel | | INCH System Administration Team (212)243-5200 | | spork@inch.com access@inch.com | = =----------------=
participants (2)
-
Charles Sprickman -
Sean Donelan