[194429] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Covering prefix blackholing traffic to one of its covered
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Niels Bakker)
Mon Apr 24 11:10:27 2017
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2017 17:10:23 +0200
From: Niels Bakker <niels=nanog@bakker.net>
To: nanog@nanog.org
Mail-Followup-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <7C10D0BB-63D9-43E9-A3C9-5971AE6DC95A@iu.edu>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
* ssw@iu.edu (Steven Wallace) [Mon 24 Apr 2017, 16:51 CEST]:
>We have dual-homed sites that only accept routes from their peers,
>and default to their transit provider. A site may receive a covering
>prefix from a peer, but since they are not accepting the full table
>from their transit provider they don’t see the covered (i.e., more
>specific). In some cases the peer announcing the covering prefix
>blackholes traffic to the covered prefix.
>
>Is this accepted behavior, or should a peer announcing a covering
>prefix always delver packets to its covered routes?
A prefix announcement means a statement of capability and willingness
to deliver packets to covered destinations. Any deviation is a hijack.
>Does this happen often?
This is more common than it should be.
-- Niels.
