nanog mailing list archives
Re: 23456 without AS4_PATH?
From: Greg Hankins <ghankins () mindspring com>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 13:46:04 -0500
These prefixes all appeared with this problem late last December: 91.207.218.0/23 35320 196629 23456 195.128.230.0/24 35320 196629 23456 35748 195.128.231.0/24 35320 196629 23456 35748 The ill side effects of the AS_CONFED_SEQUENCE in an AS4_PATH and analysis on what is going on were covered in excellent detail by Andy Davidson, Jonathan Oddy, and Rob Shakir: - NANOG thread: http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/msg14345.html - NANOG45 presentation: http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog45/presentations/Monday/Davidson_asn4_breaks_light_N45.pdf - AS4 Wiki: http://as4.cluepon.net/index.php/Operational_Issues#AS_CONFED_SEQUENCE_in_AS4_PATH Numerous attempts to contact AS 35320's NOC and peering folks about the problem by several people have pretty much been ignored. 91.196.186.0/24 looks like it just showed up with a broken AS path in the past couple of days. We'll probably see it a lot more regular invalid uses of 23456 in the future... I mean, how often does someone leak a private ASN :-)? Perhaps it is a good idea for router and routing software vendors to add 23456 to "neighbor remove-private-as". Incidentally, while RFC 4893bis will include better error handling for 32-bit ASNs, a new I-D to suggest better error handling for all optional transitive attributes was just released yesterday (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-scudder-idr-optional-transitive-00.txt). Greg -- Greg Hankins <ghankins () mindspring com> +1 404 542 5530
Current thread:
- Re: 23456 without AS4_PATH? Emanuel Petr (Mar 02)
- Re: 23456 without AS4_PATH? Greg Hankins (Mar 02)