RE: BGP Pollution

["Phil Rosenthal" <pr () isprime com>]

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