|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
From: Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net> In-Reply-To: <CAL9jLaYqBGbzNzP9M5SSuP6Vrx2dAqwUj5wC+PTv6F0cUQ9ssQ@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 12:10:18 -0400 To: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com> Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>, ahebert@pubnix.net Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org On Mar 12, 2013, at 10:23 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote: > On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 9:55 AM, Alain Hebert <ahebert@pubnix.net> = wrote: >> Hi, >>=20 >> On the 5th we notice that 27048 was announcing 2 of ours /24 >>=20 >> 812 3549 209 721 27064 27047 27047 27047 27048 >>=20 >=20 > maybe 721 doesn't have prefix AND as-path filters? (or 209 maybe?) > or intentional filtering gone wrong :( = http://puck.nether.net/bgp/leakinfo.cgi?search=3Ddo&search_prefix=3D&searc= h_aspath=3D&search_asn=3D&recent=3D1000&source=3Dnanog20130312 I know I see lots of these cases of intentional filtering gone wrong. eg: XO(2828) routes being leaked via a customer to Cogent(174) I didn't see anything related to 27048 in the past few years history at = all, but there is bad filtering all over the place. Please combine as-path filtering with your traditional prefix-list = filtering as well to block these as-paths. - Jared=
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |