nanog mailing list archives
Re: Cogent BCP-38
From: "marcel.duregards--- via NANOG" <nanog () nanog org>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 14:13:41 +0200
Really surprised that AS174 put in place any anti-spoofing. We are bgp-transit customer of CGNT and received traffic originated from RFC1918 on our public p2p link with them On 15.08.2017 17:36, Ben Russell wrote:
Could someone from Cogent contact me off-list? We are having an issue with one of our downstream customers who is multi-homed to another carrier. The end customer is advertising their prefix to both us and the other carrier. Both us and the other carrier peer with 174. However, if the prefix is preferred through us and the outbound traffic flows over the other carrier it is dropped. We suspect uRPF-strict on the other carriers Cogent link. We are working together with the other carrier and have a ticket open the help desk seem to be confused. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks Ben Russell Senior Network Engineer Stratus Networks (309)370-3174 [logo]
Current thread:
- Re: Cogent BCP-38, (continued)
- Re: Cogent BCP-38 Mike Hammett (Aug 17)
- Re: Cogent BCP-38 William Herrin (Aug 17)
- Re: Cogent BCP-38 Saku Ytti (Aug 17)
- Re: Cogent BCP-38 Robert Blayzor (Aug 28)
- Re: Cogent BCP-38 Saku Ytti (Aug 29)
- Re: Cogent BCP-38 Robert Blayzor (Aug 29)
- Re: Cogent BCP-38 Job Snijders (Aug 29)
- Re: Cogent BCP-38 Rob Evans (Aug 29)
- Re: Cogent BCP-38 Sander Steffann (Aug 30)