Hi Jared, This is neat !, for someone who recently started working the IRR's, I can tell you that it has been very difficult finding all info in one location.
What you shared is pretty neat !, and I would like to clean up the records associated with our prefixes. Can you suggest some practical tips on getting older 'stale' records cleaned up from the different registries ? (i.e. records created for us by others, in a former time-frame). Regards Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet & Telecom ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jared Mauch" <ja...@puck.nether.net> > To: "Mike Leber" <mle...@he.net> > Cc: nanog@nanog.org > Sent: Monday, June 29, 2015 5:51:18 PM > Subject: Re: NTT->HE earlier today (~10am EDT) > > Greetings, > > We are aware of this issue and as is usual we filter customers based on their > registered routes. This creates some unique challenges that we have been > speaking about publicly and privately with various groups. > > I have started the process (yay telco-speak) to fix this. > > It would be helpful if networks would take a look at what routes they have > registered in the various IRRs as well as if their AS-SETs expand out to > something quite large. We have seen many customers import objects that then > import their other upstream networks. > > We have found the IRR Explorer tool helpful to look at who has registered our > IP space and to police these registrations with the various IRRs out there. > http://irrexplorer.nlnog.net/ > > http://irrexplorer.nlnog.net/prefix/184.105.213.86 > > The stability of the routing ecosystem is something that I personally care a > lot about and have privately given Mike and others my cell number to allow > them to follow-up. As is often operators end up chasing problems after the > fact, and this appears to be no exception. *sigh* > > - Jared > > > On Jun 29, 2015, at 5:18 PM, Mike Leber <mle...@he.net> wrote: > > > > NTT's customer Sofia Connect leaked our routes to NTT. NTT accepted these > > routes instead of properly filtering their customer announcements. As a > > network of non-trivial size, announcing over 75,000 customer routes which > > is nearly 15% of the IPv4 routing table, we'd expect the common courtesy > > of having our ASN included in their customer facing AS-PATH filters, as we > > extend this same courtesy to other networks of this size (such as AS2914). > > > > Mike. > > > > On 6/29/15 2:04 PM, Jim Popovitch wrote: > >> Hello, > >> > >> I haven't seen anything to explain this, so I'm asking a larger > >> audience. Did anyone notice any unusual NTT or HE routing this AM? > >> > >> Here's what I saw: > >> > >> > >> 2.|-- xe-0-1-0-17.r04.atlnga05.us.bb.gin.ntt.net 0.0% 20 0.8 > >> 0.7 0.6 0.9 0.1 > >> 3.|-- ae-2.r20.atlnga05.us.bb.gin.ntt.net 0.0% 20 4.6 > >> 6.2 0.5 13.6 4.8 > >> 4.|-- ae-4.r22.asbnva02.us.bb.gin.ntt.net 0.0% 20 15.3 > >> 15.0 13.9 15.8 0.7 > >> 5.|-- ae-4.r20.frnkge04.de.bb.gin.ntt.net 0.0% 20 127.3 > >> 106.7 98.5 127.3 11.1 > >> 6.|-- ae-2.r02.frnkge04.de.bb.gin.ntt.net 0.0% 20 126.8 > >> 126.0 125.7 126.8 0.2 > >> 7.|-- ae-1.r00.sofibu01.bg.bb.gin.ntt.net 0.0% 20 131.1 > >> 130.0 128.7 131.4 1.2 > >> 8.|-- 83.217.227.42 80.0% 20 148.5 > >> 146.0 144.2 148.5 2.0 > >> 9.|-- ip-48-93.sofia-connect.net 90.0% 20 184.5 > >> 163.8 143.1 184.5 29.3 > >> 10.|-- ??? 100.0 20 0.0 > >> 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 > >> 11.|-- 10ge5-4.core1.vie1.he.net 75.0% 20 160.7 > >> 150.4 143.9 160.7 6.3 > >> 12.|-- 10ge1-4.core1.prg1.he.net 80.0% 20 158.4 > >> 159.5 157.9 161.1 1.6 > >> 13.|-- 10ge10-12.core1.fra1.he.net 75.0% 20 154.5 > >> 159.2 145.9 174.4 10.7 > >> 14.|-- 100ge5-2.core1.par2.he.net 75.0% 20 187.9 > >> 172.9 157.1 187.9 11.1 > >> 15.|-- 100ge7-1.core1.nyc4.he.net 78.9% 19 147.2 > >> 146.2 144.6 147.5 1.4 > >> 16.|-- 100ge7-2.core1.chi1.he.net 78.9% 19 165.6 > >> 172.1 165.6 183.5 8.0 > >> 17.|-- 10ge15-2.core1.den1.he.net 89.5% 19 201.3 > >> 204.7 201.3 208.1 4.8 > >> > >> > >> -Jim P. > >
