Covering prefix blackholing traffic to one of its covered prefixes....
niels=nanog at bakker.net
Mon Apr 24 15:10:23 UTC 2017
* ssw at iu.edu (Steven Wallace) [Mon 24 Apr 2017, 16:51 CEST]:
>We have dual-homed sites that only accept routes from their peers,
>and default to their transit provider. A site may receive a covering
>prefix from a peer, but since they are not accepting the full table
>from their transit provider they don’t see the covered (i.e., more
>specific). In some cases the peer announcing the covering prefix
>blackholes traffic to the covered prefix.
>Is this accepted behavior, or should a peer announcing a covering
>prefix always delver packets to its covered routes?
A prefix announcement means a statement of capability and willingness
to deliver packets to covered destinations. Any deviation is a hijack.
>Does this happen often?
This is more common than it should be.
More information about the NANOG