|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Lazy Engineers and Viable Excuses
--On Wednesday, August 27, 2003 9:36 AM -0400 Leo Bicknell <[email protected]> wrote: CAIS (or whatever they're called today - BtNAccess/PCCW) is a small and clueless player? Then why is 6461 peering with 3491?In a message written on Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 12:15:18AM -0400, John Payne wrote:If this is true, then why do the european NAP mailing lists (which push IRR filtering) have an almost constant stream of "oops, our customer announced everything to us and we leaked it".Because European naps have more smaller and clueless players. I know more than a few people (because they ask for peering) who have an IRR entry that is 1 prefix for the "ISP", and 1 prefix for their only BGP customer. It should be of no surprise they get that customer configured wrong. It should also be of no surprise that most of the real ISP's would never consider peering with those types of networks. (yeah, that was a customer route leak in July. I tend to just delete such emails, but I'd be surprised if there weren't more in August from ISPs that don't fit into "small and clueless") Not everyone filters their customers, and saying that everyone that counts does doesn't make it so. Really? So how was I able to advertise a new netblock to one of your customers just now and see 6461 <their AS> <my AS> on route-views.oregon-ix.net within 2 minutes and without telling a soul what I was doing? You must have some pretty broad prefix lists. (And no, it doesn't make me happy that I was able to do this... there are 2 places that are missing filters in that path).6461 filters all customers by prefix list. Note too, filtering customers does not eliminate route leaks, it just removes the most obvious and often cause. At least I *think* that they are your customer, if not, then you're leaking routes to Sprint and opentransit and telia amongst other places.
|