[49576] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: BGP Pollution
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Phil Rosenthal)
Fri Jul 5 04:41:34 2002
Reply-To: <pr@isprime.com>
From: "Phil Rosenthal" <pr@isprime.com>
To: <nanog@merit.edu>
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2002 04:40:57 -0400
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0207050932140.9072-100000@staff.opaltelecom.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
We do already filter on egress.
I don't want to filter on ingress because I think it's more important
that my customers can reach their destinations than teaching these
stupid admins a lesson.
--Phil
-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen J. Wilcox [mailto:steve@opaltelecom.co.uk]
Sent: Friday, July 05, 2002 4:33 AM
To: Pascal Gloor
Cc: pr@isprime.com; nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: BGP Pollution
filter bogon, long prefixes, long as-path ingress and egress!
and dont say "we do already" as clearly the routes are still coming
thro!
Steve
On Fri, 5 Jul 2002, Pascal Gloor wrote:
>
> >
> > 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
>
>
