nanog mailing list archives
Re: BGP Pollution
From: "Pascal Gloor" <pascal.gloor () spale com>
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2002 08:52:20 +0200
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
Current thread:
- BGP Pollution Phil Rosenthal (Jul 04)
- Re: BGP Pollution Pascal Gloor (Jul 04)
- Re: BGP Pollution Stephen J. Wilcox (Jul 05)
- RE: BGP Pollution Phil Rosenthal (Jul 05)
- RE: BGP Pollution Stephen J. Wilcox (Jul 05)
- Re: BGP Pollution Stephen J. Wilcox (Jul 05)
- Re: BGP Pollution Pascal Gloor (Jul 04)