I'm seeing the following in RouteViews (possibly since they started
getting data from paix):
route-views.oregon-ix.netsh ip bgp 0.0.0.1
BGP routing table entry for 0.0.0.0/, version 19579757
Paths: (2 available, best #2, table Default-IP-Routing-Table)
Not advertised to any peer
6939 6461
On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 04:05:56PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm seeing the following in RouteViews (possibly since they started
getting data from paix):
route-views.oregon-ix.netsh ip bgp 0.0.0.1
BGP routing table entry for 0.0.0.0/, version 19579757
Paths: (2 available, best #2,
On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 04:05:56PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm seeing the following in RouteViews (possibly since they started
getting data from paix):
route-views.oregon-ix.netsh ip bgp 0.0.0.1
BGP routing table entry for 0.0.0.0/, version 19579757
Paths: (2 available, best #2,
On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 06:15:38PM -0500, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
route-views.oregon-ix.netsh ip bgp
...
* 0.0.0.0 216.218.252.1520 6939 6461 i
* 216.218.252.1450 6939 6461 i
* 1.0.0.0 64.50.230.1
Hi, NANOGers.
] Hate to follow up to myself, but as someone just pointed out, 65333 is the
] cymru bogons server.
Woohoo, we're on route-views! We've made the big time! :) That
said, please remember to strip off such things with peers and
customers. :)
Thanks,
Rob.
--
Rob Thomas
In a message written on Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 03:12:17PM -0800, David Meyer wrote:
Nope to the former. Someone (6461) is advertising it. We
Speaking for 6461, if a customer asks for a default route, we send
them one.
The {problem,cool thing} about route-views is many people send it a full
We give a full view of our internal BGP routing table to RouteViews.
Anyway, we normally don't carry 0.0.0.0/0 internally, we've now filtered
it. We don't normally receive 0.0.0.0/0 on any of our backup transit
sessions, apparently it was configured on a new session by default.
On Thu, 18 Dec
Rob,
Congratulations... You've become THE ASN that routes THE internet!!
I bet that must be worth some CVVs.
Owen
--On Thursday, December 18, 2003 17:34 -0600 Rob Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Hi, NANOGers.
] Hate to follow up to myself, but as someone just pointed out, 65333 is
the
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
* 0.0.0.0 216.218.252.1520 6939 6461
* 216.218.252.1450 6939 6461
* 1.0.0.0 64.50.230.10 4181 65333
route-views certainly