nanog mailing list archives
Re: Lazy Engineers and Viable Excuses
From: John Payne <john () sackheads org>
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 13:24:11 -0400
--On Wednesday, August 27, 2003 9:36 AM -0400 Leo Bicknell <bicknell () ufp org> wrote:
In a message written on Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 12:15:18AM -0400, John Payne wrote:If this is true, then why do the european NAP mailing lists (which push IRR filtering) have an almost constant stream of "oops, our customer announced everything to us and we leaked it".Because European naps have more smaller and clueless players. I know more than a few people (because they ask for peering) who have an IRR entry that is 1 prefix for the "ISP", and 1 prefix for their only BGP customer. It should be of no surprise they get that customer configured wrong. It should also be of no surprise that most of the real ISP's would never consider peering with those types of networks.
CAIS (or whatever they're called today - BtNAccess/PCCW) is a small and clueless player? Then why is 6461 peering with 3491?
(yeah, that was a customer route leak in July. I tend to just delete such emails, but I'd be surprised if there weren't more in August from ISPs that don't fit into "small and clueless")
Not everyone filters their customers, and saying that everyone that counts does doesn't make it so.
6461 filters all customers by prefix list. Note too, filtering customers does not eliminate route leaks, it just removes the most obvious and often cause.
Really? So how was I able to advertise a new netblock to one of your customers just now and see 6461 <their AS> <my AS> on route-views.oregon-ix.net within 2 minutes and without telling a soul what I was doing? You must have some pretty broad prefix lists. (And no, it doesn't make me happy that I was able to do this... there are 2 places that are missing filters in that path).
At least I *think* that they are your customer, if not, then you're leaking routes to Sprint and opentransit and telia amongst other places.
Current thread:
- Re: Max TNT ping thing, (continued)
- Re: Max TNT ping thing Chris Adams (Aug 26)
- Re: Max TNT ping thing Andy Walden (Aug 27)
- Re: Lazy Engineers and Viable Excuses Jared Mauch (Aug 26)
- Re: Lazy Engineers and Viable Excuses Iljitsch van Beijnum (Aug 26)
- RE: Lazy Engineers and Viable Excuses Mark Borchers (Aug 26)
- Re: Lazy Engineers and Viable Excuses Haesu (Aug 26)
- Re: Lazy Engineers and Viable Excuses Richard A Steenbergen (Aug 26)
- Re: Lazy Engineers and Viable Excuses Steve Carter (Aug 26)
- Re: Lazy Engineers and Viable Excuses John Payne (Aug 26)
- Re: Lazy Engineers and Viable Excuses Leo Bicknell (Aug 27)
- Re: Lazy Engineers and Viable Excuses John Payne (Aug 27)
- Re: Lazy Engineers and Viable Excuses Stephen J. Wilcox (Aug 27)
- Re: Lazy Engineers and Viable Excuses william (Aug 28)
- Re: Lazy Engineers and Viable Excuses Joe Abley (Aug 26)
- Re: Lazy Engineers and Viable Excuses Stephen J. Wilcox (Aug 26)
- Message not available
- Re: Lazy Engineers and Viable Excuses Haesu (Aug 26)
- Re: Lazy Engineers and Viable Excuses Iljitsch van Beijnum (Aug 26)
- RE: Lazy Engineers and Viable Excuses Terry Baranski (Aug 26)
- Re: Route Programming (was Re: bgp route-map) Leo Bicknell (Aug 25)