Based on the ASName of both AS, including CELLCO which is the actual name of the corporate entity known as Verizon Wireless, I would agree that both are in fact Verizon Wireless. The contacts are just corporate standard entities.
Shane > On Feb 19, 2024, at 9:01 PM, Richard Laager <rlaa...@wiktel.com> wrote: > > I see the route originated by two different ASNs. I agree that when I use > the AS6167 path, it is broken (for the destinations where it is broken; > 63.59.166.100 was working despite using the AS6167 path). > > BGP routing table entry for 63.59.0.0/16 > Paths: 2 available > 6939 701 22394 > 184.105.34.254 from 184.105.34.254 (216.218.253.228) > Origin IGP, metric 0, localpref 60, IGP metric 0, weight 0, tag 0 > Received 21d19h ago, valid, external, best > Rx SAFI: Unicast > 6461 701 6167 > 69.89.205.202 from 69.89.205.202 (69.89.205.202) > Origin IGP, metric 887, localpref 60, IGP metric 40, weight 0, tag 0 > Received 4d03h ago, valid, internal > Community: 6461:5997 > Rx SAFI: Unicast > > Based on the names in WHOIS, I would say that both AS6167 and AS22394 are > Verizon Wireless. > > -- > Richard >
