BGPMON Alert Questions

Thu Apr 3 12:04:44 UTC 2014

On Wednesday, April 02, 2014 08:59:58 PM Justin M. Streiner 
wrote:

> It's pretty clear that both parties have dropped the ball
> in a big way, in terms of sane BGP filtering practices.

It's amazing, isn't it?

I have a customer of one my upstreams (Upstream A), at the 
moment, who are leaking my routes to another one of their 
upstreams (Upstream B). The problem is that Upstream B is 
re-announcing my leaked routes from their customer to the 
rest of the Internet.

So both Upstream B's customer as well as Upstream B are at 
fault. That Upstream B is simply "accepting everything" 
their customer is sending to them without applying proper 
filters, or checking to confirm that what their customer 
needs to send them should come from them is absolutely and 
unacceptably shocking!

A lot of people seem to have forgotten 2008.

Mark.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140403/075f9203/attachment.sig>