nanog mailing list archives

Re: Rogue BGP Routes


From: Mark Tinka <mark.tinka () seacom mu>
Date: Fri, 15 May 2020 21:27:58 +0200



On 15/May/20 21:14, Gary Godard wrote:
We had an eBGP session with them at that time but it was very
problematic. It is strange that the IP blocks that had the issue were
the same blocks that we advertised with them and the ones that we were
using with Level 3 at the time were unaffected.

My suspicion is that those 2 prefixes you highlight were being
originated from behind their AS, for some reason or other. It is quite
possible that between leaving that contract and people moving on, that
origination stayed in place. It's not the first time I or Philip (Smith)
have seen many cases of these, that pop up years later, only to find
that someone forgot about a static route or an on-behalf origination
from years back after all manner of staff shuffled through both companies.

Of course, very possible this is - as Randy would say - conjecturbation,
on my part; but it's what stands out to me most, at the moment.



Once this message posted to the group, I got responses from Charter
almost immediately from the group. So if I had been a member of the
group yesterday morning when the problem was discovered I could have
had a much faster resolution.

More pressure is better than less :-).

Mark.


Current thread: