Verizon no BGP route to some of AS38365 (182.61.200.0/24)

Thu Jul 21 13:30:59 UTC 2022

>
> Unfortunately it seems like policy that Verizon pushes any issues that
> aren't internal routing issues to an external party, but surely they have a
> responsibility to maintain their peering and routes to external services as
> well.
>

Baidu is behind CT. If CT is not passing on routes to 701 , what exactly do
you expect Verizon to do about it?

On Wed, Jul 20, 2022 at 6:40 PM holow29 <holow29 at gmail.com> wrote:

> To follow up on this:
> I've engaged Verizon's executive office to finally try to get to a network
> engineer (because I don't have a contact myself). The (proxied) response
> from the engineer was that they aren't receiving any announcements for
> these routes to AS701, and I would need to take it up with Baidu. I guess I
> would like to understand if that seems reasonable to people since it is my
> presumption that Baidu would return and say something similar (that they
> advertise their routes to their peers correctly and to take it up with
> Verizon). To me, it seems like there is clearly a failing in one of
> Verizon's peers where they are not advertising or accepting this route
> correctly, but that it would be incumbent on Verizon to do the legwork to
> fix it since they are the ones who know their peering agreements and have
> these contacts. Unfortunately it seems like policy that Verizon pushes any
> issues that aren't internal routing issues to an external party, but surely
> they have a responsibility to maintain their peering and routes to external
> services as well. In other words, this type of buckpassing does not seem
> right to me (and I've heard it from them on other routing issues before),
> especially given that they are the ones empowered to fix it. Any thoughts?
>
> (As it happens, pan.baidu.com now resolves to an IP range that is
> routable by Verizon, but it could always revert, and it seems like Verizon
> should have these routes regardless.)
>
> Thanks.
>
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 7:41 AM Matthew Huff <mhuff at ox.com> wrote:
>
>> From my limited vantage point it appears that there is some issue between
>> Verizon & Baidu. Baidu has 182.61.0.0/16 registered, but is only
>> advertising pieces of it globally (or at least from what I can see). In our
>> tables,we are receiving none from Verizon of  the subnets that are
>> advertised directly from Baidu (origin AS of 38365). The few within that
>> registered range that have a different origin AS are coming to us from
>> Verizon. For example:
>>
>>
>>
>> *>   182.61.0.0/19    144.121.203.141                        0 46887
>> 3356 4134 58466 38365 i
>>
>> *>   182.61.0.0/18    144.121.203.141                        0 46887
>> 6461 4134 58466 38365 38365 i
>>
>> *>   182.61.32.0/19   144.121.203.141                        0 46887
>> 3356 4134 58466 38365 i
>>
>> *>   182.61.64.0/18   204.148.121.221                        0 701 6453
>> 55967 i
>>
>> *    182.61.128.0/23  204.148.121.221                        0 701 4134
>> 4134 4134 4134 4134 58540 ?
>>
>> *>   182.61.130.0/24  144.121.203.141                        0 46887
>> 6461 4134 23724 38365 38365 38365 i
>>
>> *>   182.61.130.0/23  144.121.203.141                        0 46887
>> 6461 4134 58466 38365 38365 i
>>
>> *>   182.61.131.0/24  144.121.203.141                        0 46887
>> 6461 4134 23724 38365 38365 38365 i
>>
>> *>   182.61.132.0/23  144.121.203.141                        0 46887
>> 3356 4134 58466 38365 i
>>
>> *>   182.61.132.0/22  144.121.203.141                        0 46887
>> 6461 4134 58466 38365 38365 i
>>
>> *>   182.61.134.0/23  144.121.203.141                        0 46887
>> 3356 4134 58466 38365 i
>>
>> *>   182.61.136.0/22  144.121.203.141                        0 46887
>> 3356 4134 58466 38365 i
>>
>> *>   182.61.136.0/21  144.121.203.141                        0 46887
>> 6461 4134 58466 38365 38365 i
>>
>> *>   182.61.140.0/22  144.121.203.141                        0 46887
>> 3356 4134 58466 38365 i
>>
>> *>   182.61.144.0/21  144.121.203.141                        0 46887
>> 3356 4134 58466 38365 i
>>
>> *>   182.61.144.0/20  144.121.203.141                        0 46887
>> 6461 4134 58466 38365 38365 i
>>
>> *>   182.61.160.0/19  204.148.121.221                        0 701 6453
>> 55967 i
>>
>> *>   182.61.192.0/23  144.121.203.141                        0 46887
>> 3356 4134 58540 i
>>
>> *>   182.61.194.0/23  144.121.203.141                        0 46887
>> 3356 4134 58540 i
>>
>> *>   182.61.200.0/22  144.121.203.141                        0 46887
>> 6461 4134 23724 38365 i
>>
>> *>   182.61.200.0/21  144.121.203.141                        0 46887
>> 6461 4134 58466 38365 38365 i
>>
>> *>   182.61.216.0/21  144.121.203.141                        0 46887
>> 6461 4134 58466 38365 38365 i
>>
>> *>   182.61.223.0/24  144.121.203.141                        0 46887
>> 6461 4134 58466 38365 38365 i
>>
>> *>   182.61.224.0/19  144.121.203.141                        0 46887
>> 6461 4134 58466 38365 38365 i
>>
>>
>>
>> We are getting the 182.61.200.0/21 and 182.61.200.0/22 from all of our
>> other peers:
>>
>>
>>
>> asr-inet2#sh ip bgp 182.61.200.0/21
>>
>> BGP routing table entry for 182.61.200.0/21, version 15779018
>>
>> Paths: (2 available, best #2, table default)
>>
>>   Advertised to update-groups:
>>
>>      3
>>
>>   Refresh Epoch 1
>>
>>   54004 6128 1299 4134 58466 38365 38365, (aggregated by 38365
>> 119.75.208.225)
>>
>>     148.77.99.201 from 148.77.99.201 (24.157.4.25)
>>
>>       Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external, atomic-aggregate
>>
>>       rx pathid: 0, tx pathid: 0
>>
>>       Updated on Apr 29 2022 21:02:05 EDT
>>
>>   Refresh Epoch 1
>>
>>   46887 6461 4134 58466 38365 38365, (aggregated by 38365 119.75.208.225)
>>
>>     129.77.17.254 from 129.77.17.254 (129.77.40.7)
>>
>>       Origin IGP, metric 0, localpref 100, valid, internal,
>> atomic-aggregate, best
>>
>>       rx pathid: 0, tx pathid: 0x0
>>
>>       Updated on May 3 2022 04:02:50 EDT
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* NANOG <nanog-bounces+mhuff=ox.com at nanog.org> *On Behalf Of *
>> holow29
>> *Sent:* Thursday, June 23, 2022 5:49 PM
>> *To:* nanog at nanog.org
>> *Subject:* Verizon no BGP route to some of AS38365 (182.61.200.0/24)
>>
>>
>>
>> I've been trying (to no avail) for over a month now to get Verizon to
>> investigate their lack of BGP routing to 182.61.200.0/24, which hosts
>> Baidu Wangpan at  pan.baidu.com (Baidu's cloud services/equivalent of
>> Google Drive).
>>
>>
>>
>> Easily verified through Verizon's Looking Glass.
>>
>>
>>
>> We all know Verizon's BGP routing is a disaster, but does anyone have any
>> ideas?
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20220721/493ec602/attachment.html>