North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: BGP Pollution

  • From: Pascal Gloor
  • Date: Fri Jul 05 02:54:28 2002 
>
>    Network          Next Hop            Metric LocPrf Weight Path
> *>i203.168.78.0     66.230.128.97           40    100      0 2914 6453
> 4755 4755 4755 4755 4755 4755 17632 17632 17632 17632 17632 17632 17632
> 17632 17632 17632 17632 i
> *>i217.220.42.0     66.230.128.97           40    100      0 2914 1239
> 1267 21164 21164 21164 21164 21164 21164 21164 21164 21164 21164 21164
> 21164 21164 21164 21164 21164 21164 21164 21164 21164 21164 21164 21164
> 21164 21164 I
>
> Is there any possible excuse for such ugly looking as-paths?
> (these are the worst offenders, but there are plenty more that are still
> really bad...)

some more?

I see 32 /32, 1 /31 and 164 /30 !!!!
Source, SwiNOG RouteViewer.

http://tools.swinog.ch/wwwbin/compare-bgp?type=mask&mask=32
http://tools.swinog.ch/wwwbin/compare-bgp?type=mask&mask=31
http://tools.swinog.ch/wwwbin/compare-bgp?type=mask&mask=30

We all think /29 in BGP is kinda bad, but first of all lets get rid of the
/32 /31 and /30 ;-P