Lazy Engineers and Viable Excuses

Wed Aug 27 17:24:11 UTC 2003

--On Wednesday, August 27, 2003 9:36 AM -0400 Leo Bicknell 
<bicknell at ufp.org> wrote:

> In a message written on Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 12:15:18AM -0400, John Payne
> wrote:
>> 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 
route-views.oregon-ix.net 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.