nanog mailing list archives
RE: BGP Pollution
From: "Phil Rosenthal" <pr () isprime com>
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2002 04:40:57 -0400
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
Current thread:
- BGP Pollution Phil Rosenthal (Jul 04)
- Re: BGP Pollution Pascal Gloor (Jul 04)
- Re: BGP Pollution Stephen J. Wilcox (Jul 05)
- RE: BGP Pollution Phil Rosenthal (Jul 05)
- RE: BGP Pollution Stephen J. Wilcox (Jul 05)
- Re: BGP Pollution Stephen J. Wilcox (Jul 05)
- Re: BGP Pollution Pascal Gloor (Jul 04)