Re: BGP Pollution

• From: Stephen J. Wilcox
• Date: Fri Jul 05 04:37:03 2002

filter bogon, long prefixes, long as-path ingress and egress!

and dont say "we do already" as clearly the routes are still coming thro!

Steve

On Fri, 5 Jul 2002, Pascal Gloor wrote:

> 
> >
> >    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
> 
> 

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: BGP Pollution Phil Rosenthal

• References:
  • Re: BGP Pollution Pascal Gloor

• Prev by Date: RE: Internet vulnerabilities
• Next by Date: RE: BGP Pollution
• Date Index
• Thread Index
• Author Index
• Historical