Wrong use of 100.64.0.0/10
Justin M. Streiner
streiner at cluebyfour.org
Fri Oct 2 16:19:52 UTC 2015
On Fri, 2 Oct 2015, Marco Paesani wrote:
> I know that we must filter this type of route, but AS9498 (upstream) MUST
> accept only correct networks.
> Or not ?
They should filter out routes that are not supposed to be globally
routable, but many providers don't do this, unfortunately.
> 2015-10-02 16:52 GMT+02:00 Justin M. Streiner <streiner at cluebyfour.org>:
>> On Fri, 2 Oct 2015, Marco Paesani wrote:
>>> 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:
>>> > to 188.8.131.52 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.
> 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