nanog mailing list archives
Re: 2001:590::/32 announced by both AS4436 (nLayer) and AS4474 (Global Village, no contact in whois, but seems to be nLayer...)
From: Joe Abley <jabley () isc org>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 12:58:12 -0500
On 16 Mar 2004, at 12:03, bill wrote:
there is no problem with a prefix being announced by more than one ASN.
I am fairly sure that I have seen real-life issues with at least one vendor's BGP implementation which led a valid route object with one origin to be masked by another valid route object with a different origin which was learnt earlier, a masking effect that continued even after the original masking route was withdrawn.
I don't have any solid documentation or results of experiments to support this, although it seemed very real at the time. It has always led me to promote the conservative practice of advertising routes with a consistent origin AS.
Bill: have you done any measurement exercises to determine whether this is, in fact, an issue? Or was your comment above based on the protocol, rather than deployed implementations of the protocol?
Joe
Current thread:
- 2001:590::/32 announced by both AS4436 (nLayer) and AS4474 (Global Village, no contact in whois, but seems to be nLayer...) Jeroen Massar (Mar 16)
- Re: 2001:590::/32 announced by both AS4436 (nLayer) and AS4474 (Global Village, no contact in whois, but seems to be nLayer...) william(at)elan.net (Mar 16)
- Re: 2001:590::/32 announced by both AS4436 (nLayer) and AS4474 (Global Village, no contact in whois, but seems to be nLayer...) John Payne (Mar 16)
- RE: 2001:590::/32 announced by both AS4436 (nLayer) and AS4474 (Global Village, no contact in whois, but seems to be nLayer...) Matthew Kaufman (Mar 16)
- Re: 2001:590::/32 announced by both AS4436 (nLayer) and AS4474 (Global Village, no contact in whois, but seems to be nLayer...) bill (Mar 16)
- RE: 2001:590::/32 announced by both AS4436 (nLayer) and AS4474 (Global Village, no contact in whois, but seems to be nLayer...) Jeroen Massar (Mar 16)
- Re: 2001:590::/32 announced by both AS4436 (nLayer) and AS4474 (Global Village, no contact in whois, but seems to be nLayer...) Richard A Steenbergen (Mar 16)
- RE: 2001:590::/32 announced by both AS4436 (nLayer) and AS4474 (Global Village, no contact in whois, but seems to be nLayer...) Jeroen Massar (Mar 16)
- RE: 2001:590::/32 announced by both AS4436 (nLayer) and AS4474 (Global Village, no contact in whois, but seems to be nLayer...) Jeroen Massar (Mar 16)
- RE: 2001:590::/32 announced by both AS4436 (nLayer) and AS4474 (Global Village, no contact in whois, but seems to be nLayer...) Jeroen Massar (Mar 16)
- Re: 2001:590::/32 announced by both AS4436 (nLayer) and AS4474 (Global Village, no contact in whois, but seems to be nLayer...) Joe Abley (Mar 16)
- Re: 2001:590::/32 announced by both AS4436 (nLayer) and AS4474 (Global Village, no contact in whois, but seems to be nLayer...) Richard A Steenbergen (Mar 16)
- Re: 2001:590::/32 announced by both AS4436 (nLayer) and AS4474 (Global Village, no contact in whois, but seems to be nLayer...) william(at)elan.net (Mar 16)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: 2001:590::/32 announced by both AS4436 (nLayer) and AS4474 (Global Village, no contact in whois, but seems to be nLayer...) Michael . Dillon (Mar 16)
- RE: 2001:590::/32 announced by both AS4436 (nLayer) and AS4474 (Global Village, no contact in whois, but seems to be nLayer...) Jeroen Massar (Mar 16)
- RE: 2001:590::/32 announced by both AS4436 (nLayer) and AS4474 (Global Village, no contact in whois, but seems to be nLayer...) Jeff S Wheeler (Mar 16)
- RE: 2001:590::/32 announced by both AS4436 (nLayer) and AS4474(Global Village, no contact in whois, but seems to be nLayer...) Jeroen Massar (Mar 16)
- RE: 2001:590::/32 announced by both AS4436 (nLayer) and AS4474 (Global Village, no contact in whois, but seems to be nLayer...) Jeroen Massar (Mar 16)