HE doesn't provide any community based TE and I would say they're a pretty major network.
Filip On 14 June 2019 2:17:43 am GMT+02:00, Joe Provo <nanog-p...@rsuc.gweep.net> wrote: >On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 09:58:20AM -0400, Joe Abley wrote: >> Hey Joe, >> >> On 12 Jun 2019, at 12:37, Joe Provo <nanog-p...@rsuc.gweep.net> >wrote: >> >> > On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 04:10:00PM +0000, David Guo via NANOG >wrote: >> >> Send abuse complaint to the upstreams >> > >> > ...and then name & shame publicly. AS-path forgery "for TE" was >> > never a good idea. Sharing the affected prefix[es]/path[s] would >> > be good. >> >> I realise lots of people dislike AS_PATH stuffing with other peoples' >AS numbers and treat it as a form of hijacking. >> >> However, there's an argument that AS_PATH is really just a >> loop-avoidance mechanism, not some kind of AS-granular traceroute >> for prefix propagation. In that sense, stuffing 9327 into a prefix >> as a mechanism to stop that prefix being accepted by AS 9327 seems >> almost reasonable. (I assume this is the kind of TE you are talking >> about.) >> >> What is the principal harm of doing this? Honest question. I'm >> not advocating for anything, just curious. > >There is no way at a distance to tell the difference between: >- legitimate AS forwarding >- ham-fistedly attempting "innocent" TE away from the forged AS >- maliciously hiding traffic from the forged AS >- an error with the forged AS > >IME, when you can NOT look like an error or an attack, that's a >Good Thing. > >The last "major" provider who failed to provide BGP community-based >TE was 3549, and with their absorbtion into 3356 no one should have >any tolerance for this garbage, IMNSHO. > >Cheers, > >joe > > >-- >Posted from my personal account - see X-Disclaimer header. >Joe Provo / Gweep / Earthling -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.