On Fri, 2 Oct 2015, Marco Paesani wrote:
I know that we must filter this type of route, but AS9498 (upstream) MUST
accept only correct networks.
Or not ?
They should filter out routes that are not supposed to be globally
routable, but many providers don't do this, unfortunately.
jms
2015-
On 2 October 2015 at 16:10, Marco Paesani wrote:
> Hi Justin,
> I know that we must filter this type of route, but AS9498 (upstream) MUST
> accept only correct networks.
> Or not ?
> Ciao,
> Marco
You are correct.
AS-9730 shoudn't be advertising this range.
AS-9498 shouldn't be accepting this r
Hi Justin,
I know that we must filter this type of route, but AS9498 (upstream) MUST
accept only correct networks.
Or not ?
Ciao,
Marco
2015-10-02 16:52 GMT+02:00 Justin M. Streiner :
> On Fri, 2 Oct 2015, Marco Paesani wrote:
>
> Hi,
>> probably this route is wrong, see RFC 6598, as you can see
On Fri, 2 Oct 2015, Marco Paesani wrote:
Hi,
probably this route is wrong, see RFC 6598, as you can see:
show route 100.64.0.0/10
inet.0: 563509 destinations, 1528595 routes (561239 active, 0 holddown,
3898 hidden)
+ = Active Route, - = Last Active, * = Both
100.100.1.0/24 *[BGP/170] 2d 1
Hi,
probably this route is wrong, see RFC 6598, as you can see:
show route 100.64.0.0/10
inet.0: 563509 destinations, 1528595 routes (561239 active, 0 holddown,
3898 hidden)
+ = Active Route, - = Last Active, * = Both
100.100.1.0/24 *[BGP/170] 2d 14:46:05, MED 100, localpref 100
5 matches
Mail list logo