Wrong use of 100.64.0.0/10

Marco Paesani marco at paesani.it
Fri Oct 2 15:10:49 UTC 2015


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 <streiner at cluebyfour.org>:

> 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 14:46:05, MED 100, localpref 100
>>                      AS path: 5580 9498 9730 I, validation-state:
>> unverified
>>                    > to 78.152.54.166 via ge-2/0/0.0
>>
>
> My guess is someone leaking an internal route.  It's not uncommon to see
> people using random IPv4 space for internal purposes.  Ranges such as
> 100.100.x.0/24 or 20.20.x.0/24 are often mis-used in this way.
>
> It also looks like at least one of their upsteams is not filtering out any
> advertisements from 100.64/10.
>
> jms
>



-- 

Marco Paesani
MPAE Srl

Skype: mpaesani
Mobile: +39 348 6019349
Success depends on the right choice !
Email: marco at paesani.it


More information about the NANOG mailing list