Re: Wrong use of 100.64.0.0/10

["Justin M. Streiner" <streiner () cluebyfour org>]

On Fri, 2 Oct 2015, Marco Paesani wrote:

> I know that we must filter this type of route, but AS9498 (upstream) MUST
> accept only correct networks.
> Or not ?

They should filter out routes that are not supposed to be globally 
routable, but many providers don't do this, unfortunately.

jms

> 2015-10-02 16:52 GMT+02:00 Justin M. Streiner <streiner () cluebyfour org>:
>
> > On Fri, 2 Oct 2015, Marco Paesani wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> > > probably this route is wrong, see RFC 6598, as you can see:
> > >
> > > show route 100.64.0.0/10
> > >
> > > inet.0: 563509 destinations, 1528595 routes (561239 active, 0 holddown,
> > > 3898 hidden)
> > > + = Active Route, - = Last Active, * = Both
> > >
> > > 100.100.1.0/24     *[BGP/170] 2d 14:46:05, MED 100, localpref 100
> > >                      AS path: 5580 9498 9730 I, validation-state:
> > > unverified
> > >                   > to 78.152.54.166 via ge-2/0/0.0
> >
> > My guess is someone leaking an internal route.  It's not uncommon to see
> > people using random IPv4 space for internal purposes.  Ranges such as
> > 100.100.x.0/24 or 20.20.x.0/24 are often mis-used in this way.
> >
> > It also looks like at least one of their upsteams is not filtering out any
> > advertisements from 100.64/10.
> >
> > jms
>
>
>
> --
>
> Marco Paesani
> MPAE Srl
>
> Skype: mpaesani
> Mobile: +39 348 6019349
> Success depends on the right choice !
> Email: marco () paesani it