RE: BGP Pollution

["Stephen J. Wilcox" <steve () opaltelecom co uk>]

In principle yes. But the entry level experience to BGP is pretty much none and
if you dont filter their /32s and ridiculous as-paths they certainly wont..

The fact they announce /30, /32 proves they dont know what they're doing..

Are these bad destinations really worth getting to - do you need to be able to
get to the 164x /30s listed below? 

And if everyone had proper filtering and it did affect their reachability it
would be more widespread and they'd be forced to clean up their announcements.

Steve

On Fri, 5 Jul 2002, Phil Rosenthal wrote:

> 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