Yes, now that is possible (just no direct peering). So that takes me back to my original statement about not announcing the 150.182.208.0/20 prefix to begin with.
Kenneth On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 10:31 AM, Andree Toonk <andree+na...@toonk.nl>wrote: > Hi Kenneth, > > .-- My secret spy satellite informs me that at 2013-01-11 8:54 AM > Kenneth McRae wrote: > > Thanks for that info Andree. The only valid peer I see on the list > > would be HE. We do not peer with any of the others listed. > > Could it be these ASns receive your routes via an IX route-server? > > Below some examples that show a peering between 26347 and > 5580 as well as 12989 > > 5580 26347 > > http://www.ris.ripe.net/cgi-bin/lg/index.cgi?rrc=RRC031&query=12&arg=5580+26347 > > 12989 26347: > > http://www.ris.ripe.net/cgi-bin/lg/index.cgi?rrc=RRC031&query=12&arg=12989+26347 > > And route views: > > route-views>sh ip bgp regex 12989_26347 > BGP table version is 427410275, local router ID is 128.223.51.103 > Status codes: s suppressed, d damped, h history, * valid, > best, i - > internal, > r RIB-failure, S Stale > Origin codes: i - IGP, e - EGP, ? - incomplete > > Network Next Hop Metric LocPrf Weight Path > * 64.111.96.0/19 208.74.64.40 0 19214 12989 > 26347 i > * 66.33.192.0/19 208.74.64.40 0 19214 12989 > 26347 i > * 67.205.0.0/18 208.74.64.40 0 19214 12989 > 26347 i > * 69.163.128.0/17 208.74.64.40 0 19214 12989 > 26347 i > * 75.119.192.0/19 208.74.64.40 0 19214 12989 > 26347 i > * 173.236.128.0/17 208.74.64.40 0 19214 12989 > 26347 i > * 205.196.208.0/20 208.74.64.40 0 19214 12989 > 26347 i > * 208.97.128.0/18 208.74.64.40 0 19214 12989 > 26347 i > * 208.113.128.0/17 208.74.64.40 0 19214 12989 > 26347 i > * 208.113.200.0 208.74.64.40 0 19214 12989 > 26347 i > > > > Cheers, > Andree > > >