[49573] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: BGP Pollution
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Pascal Gloor)
Fri Jul 5 02:52:57 2002
From: "Pascal Gloor" <pascal.gloor@spale.com>
To: <pr@isprime.com>
Cc: <nanog@merit.edu>
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2002 08:52:20 +0200
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
>
> Network Next Hop Metric LocPrf Weight Path
> *>i203.168.78.0 66.230.128.97 40 100 0 2914 6453
> 4755 4755 4755 4755 4755 4755 17632 17632 17632 17632 17632 17632 17632
> 17632 17632 17632 17632 i
> *>i217.220.42.0 66.230.128.97 40 100 0 2914 1239
> 1267 21164 21164 21164 21164 21164 21164 21164 21164 21164 21164 21164
> 21164 21164 21164 21164 21164 21164 21164 21164 21164 21164 21164 21164
> 21164 21164 I
>
> Is there any possible excuse for such ugly looking as-paths?
> (these are the worst offenders, but there are plenty more that are still
> really bad...)
some more?
I see 32 /32, 1 /31 and 164 /30 !!!!
Source, SwiNOG RouteViewer.
http://tools.swinog.ch/wwwbin/compare-bgp?type=mask&mask=32
http://tools.swinog.ch/wwwbin/compare-bgp?type=mask&mask=31
http://tools.swinog.ch/wwwbin/compare-bgp?type=mask&mask=30
We all think /29 in BGP is kinda bad, but first of all lets get rid of the
/32 /31 and /30 ;-P
