nanog mailing list archives
Re: Wrong use of 100.64.0.0/10
From: "Justin M. Streiner" <streiner () cluebyfour org>
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 12:19:52 -0400 (EDT)
On Fri, 2 Oct 2015, Marco Paesani wrote:
I know that we must filter this type of route, but AS9498 (upstream) MUST accept only correct networks. Or not ?
They should filter out routes that are not supposed to be globally routable, but many providers don't do this, unfortunately.
jms
2015-10-02 16:52 GMT+02:00 Justin M. Streiner <streiner () cluebyfour org>:On Fri, 2 Oct 2015, Marco Paesani wrote: Hi,probably this route is wrong, see RFC 6598, as you can see: show route 100.64.0.0/10 inet.0: 563509 destinations, 1528595 routes (561239 active, 0 holddown, 3898 hidden) + = Active Route, - = Last Active, * = Both 100.100.1.0/24 *[BGP/170] 2d 14:46:05, MED 100, localpref 100 AS path: 5580 9498 9730 I, validation-state: unverified > to 78.152.54.166 via ge-2/0/0.0My guess is someone leaking an internal route. It's not uncommon to see people using random IPv4 space for internal purposes. Ranges such as 100.100.x.0/24 or 20.20.x.0/24 are often mis-used in this way. It also looks like at least one of their upsteams is not filtering out any advertisements from 100.64/10. jms-- Marco Paesani MPAE Srl Skype: mpaesani Mobile: +39 348 6019349 Success depends on the right choice ! Email: marco () paesani it
Current thread:
- Wrong use of 100.64.0.0/10 Marco Paesani (Oct 02)
- Re: Wrong use of 100.64.0.0/10 Justin M. Streiner (Oct 02)
- Re: Wrong use of 100.64.0.0/10 Marco Paesani (Oct 02)
- Re: Wrong use of 100.64.0.0/10 James Bensley (Oct 02)
- Re: Wrong use of 100.64.0.0/10 Justin M. Streiner (Oct 02)
- Re: Wrong use of 100.64.0.0/10 Marco Paesani (Oct 02)
- Re: Wrong use of 100.64.0.0/10 Justin M. Streiner (Oct 02)