North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Lazy Engineers and Viable Excuses

  • From: John Payne
  • Date: Wed Aug 27 14:04:50 2003

--On Wednesday, August 27, 2003 9:36 AM -0400 Leo Bicknell <[email protected]> wrote:

In a message written on Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 12:15:18AM -0400, John Payne
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.
CAIS (or whatever they're called today - BtNAccess/PCCW) is a small and clueless player? Then why is 6461 peering with 3491?

(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.

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.
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 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).

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.