[184361] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Wrong use of 100.64.0.0/10
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Marco Paesani)
Fri Oct 2 11:17:29 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1510021036420.8117@whammy.cluebyfour.org>
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 17:10:49 +0200
From: Marco Paesani <marco@paesani.it>
To: "Justin M. Streiner" <streiner@cluebyfour.org>
Reply-To: marco@paesani.it
Cc: nanog <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Hi Justin,
I know that we must filter this type of route, but AS9498 (upstream) MUST
accept only correct networks.
Or not ?
Ciao,
Marco
2015-10-02 16:52 GMT+02:00 Justin M. Streiner <streiner@cluebyfour.org>:
> On Fri, 2 Oct 2015, Marco Paesani wrote:
>
> Hi,
>> probably this route is wrong, see RFC 6598, as you can see:
>>
>> show route 100.64.0.0/10
>>
>> inet.0: 563509 destinations, 1528595 routes (561239 active, 0 holddown,
>> 3898 hidden)
>> + = Active Route, - = Last Active, * = Both
>>
>> 100.100.1.0/24 *[BGP/170] 2d 14:46:05, MED 100, localpref 100
>> AS path: 5580 9498 9730 I, validation-state:
>> unverified
>> > to 78.152.54.166 via ge-2/0/0.0
>>
>
> My guess is someone leaking an internal route. It's not uncommon to see
> people using random IPv4 space for internal purposes. Ranges such as
> 100.100.x.0/24 or 20.20.x.0/24 are often mis-used in this way.
>
> It also looks like at least one of their upsteams is not filtering out any
> advertisements from 100.64/10.
>
> jms
>
--
Marco Paesani
MPAE Srl
Skype: mpaesani
Mobile: +39 348 6019349
Success depends on the right choice !
Email: marco@paesani.it
