Hi Justin, I know that we must filter this type of route, but AS9498 (upstream) MUST accept only correct networks. Or not ? Ciao, Marco
2015-10-02 16:52 GMT+02:00 Justin M. Streiner <strei...@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-2/0/0.0 >> > > My 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: ma...@paesani.it
