192.169.0.0

Mailman List Mirror (Read Only)
1

route-views.oregon-ix.net>sh ip bg 192.169.0.0
BGP routing table entry for 192.169.0.0/16, version 51241382
Paths: (1 available, best #1, table Default-IP-Routing-Table, not advertised to EBGP peer)
  Not advertised to any peer
  14608 4323
    209.161.175.4 from 209.161.175.4 (209.161.175.4)
      Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external, best
      Community: no-export

'cept they don't own it

2

Time warner carrying a /16 instead of all the /24's and accidently leaking
this? 'route filter mistake' ?

3

route-views.oregon-ix.net>sh ip bg 192.169.0.0
BGP routing table entry for 192.169.0.0/16, version 51241382
Paths: (1 available, best #1, table Default-IP-Routing-Table, not advertised to EBGP peer)
  Not advertised to any peer
  14608 4323
    209.161.175.4 from 209.161.175.4 (209.161.175.4)
      Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external, best
      Community: no-export
'cept they don't own it

Time warner carrying a /16 instead of all the /24's and accidently leaking
this? 'route filter mistake' ?

but they don't own the space!!!

    % whois -h whois.arin.net 192.169.0.0

    OrgName: RGnet, LLC
    OrgID: RGNETI-1
    Address: 5147 Crystal Springs Drive NE
    City: Bainbridge Island
    StateProv: WA
    PostalCode: 98110
    Country: US

    NetRange: 192.169.0.0 - 192.169.1.255
    CIDR: 192.169.0.0/23
    NetName: PSG169
    NetHandle: NET-192-169-0-0-1
    Parent: NET-192-0-0-0-0
    NetType: Direct Assignment
    NameServer: PSG.COM
    NameServer: NS0.REM.COM
    Comment:
    RegDate: 2005-04-12
    Updated: 2005-04-12

    TechHandle: RB366-ARIN
    TechName: Bush, Randy
    TechPhone: +1-206-780-0431
    TechEmail: randy@psg.com

    OrgTechHandle: RB366-ARIN
    OrgTechName: Bush, Randy
    OrgTechPhone: +1-206-780-0431
    OrgTechEmail: randy@psg.com

thank you very much!

randy

4

>> route-views.oregon-ix.net>sh ip bg 192.169.0.0
>> BGP routing table entry for 192.169.0.0/16, version 51241382
>> Paths: (1 available, best #1, table Default-IP-Routing-Table, not advertised to EBGP peer)
>> Not advertised to any peer
>> 14608 4323
>> 209.161.175.4 from 209.161.175.4 (209.161.175.4)
>> Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external, best
>> Community: no-export
>> 'cept they don't own it
> Time warner carrying a /16 instead of all the /24's and accidently leaking
> this? 'route filter mistake' ?

but they don't own the space!!!

agreed, they don't own the space. I was supposing they were doing what
SwissCom does: Announce /8's or /<largeenoughtonotbotherpeople> routes for
currently allocated space, drop announcements inside these except those
required to talk to their customers. Hopefully set these no-export so they
don't leak outside of 4323.

So, given that hypothesis they just have a broken filter somewhere... of
course I could be wrong... but I hope I'm not.

5

So, what'd they say when you called their NOC? Alot of the space in this
/16 isn't assigned to any ARIN member. I've got this route in our TWT
transit BGP feed.

BGP routing table entry for 192.169.0.0/16, version 17612444
Paths: (1 available, best #1, table Default-IP-Routing-Table)
  Advertised to update-groups:
     1
  4323

6

So, what'd they say when you called their NOC?

not being a customer, i did not call. i wrote to twt and their
downstream as listed in arin. no response. i am deeply shocked.

randy

7

more grist for your mill:

route-server>sho ip route | inc 192.169
B 66.192.169.0/24 [200/0] via 168.215.52.9, 7w0d
B 192.169.41.0/24 [200/0] via 168.215.52.71, 17:33:51
B 192.169.38.0/24 [200/0] via 168.215.52.71, 6d07h
B 192.169.4.0/24 [200/0] via 168.215.52.71, 2w4d
B 192.169.39.0/24 [200/0] via 168.215.52.102, 6d16h
B 211.192.169.0/24 [200/0] via 168.215.52.9, 2d16h
B 192.169.35.0/24 [200/0] via 168.215.52.71, 6d07h
B 192.169.2.0/24 [200/0] via 168.215.52.71, 2w4d
B 192.169.3.0/24 [200/0] via 168.215.52.71, 2w4d
B 192.169.40.0/23 [200/0] via 168.215.52.71, 17:33:58
B 192.169.36.0/23 [200/0] via 168.215.52.71, 6d07h
B 192.169.0.0/16 [200/0] via 168.215.52.102, 7w0d
B 192.169.32.0/22 [200/0] via 168.215.52.71, 6d07h
route-server>sho ip int bri
Interface IP-Address OK? Method Status
Protocol
FastEthernet0/0 66.162.47.58 YES manual up
up
Loopback0 unassigned YES NVRAM up
up

TWT has a route-server (from traceroute.org's listings) note the age of
this route:
B 192.169.0.0/16 [200/0] via 168.215.52.102, 7w0d

8

more grist for your mill:

route-server>sho ip route | inc 192.169
B 66.192.169.0/24 [200/0] via 168.215.52.9, 7w0d
B 192.169.41.0/24 [200/0] via 168.215.52.71, 17:33:51
B 192.169.38.0/24 [200/0] via 168.215.52.71, 6d07h
B 192.169.4.0/24 [200/0] via 168.215.52.71, 2w4d
B 192.169.39.0/24 [200/0] via 168.215.52.102, 6d16h
B 211.192.169.0/24 [200/0] via 168.215.52.9, 2d16h
B 192.169.35.0/24 [200/0] via 168.215.52.71, 6d07h
B 192.169.2.0/24 [200/0] via 168.215.52.71, 2w4d
B 192.169.3.0/24 [200/0] via 168.215.52.71, 2w4d
B 192.169.40.0/23 [200/0] via 168.215.52.71, 17:33:58
B 192.169.36.0/23 [200/0] via 168.215.52.71, 6d07h
B 192.169.0.0/16 [200/0] via 168.215.52.102, 7w0d
B 192.169.32.0/22 [200/0] via 168.215.52.71, 6d07h
route-server>sho ip int bri
Interface IP-Address OK? Method Status
Protocol
FastEthernet0/0 66.162.47.58 YES manual up
up
Loopback0 unassigned YES NVRAM up
up

TWT has a route-server (from traceroute.org's listings) note the age of
this route:
B 192.169.0.0/16 [200/0] via 168.215.52.102, 7w0d

i don't get it. this is supposed to be a good thing.

am i supposed to just announce the 200+ /8s that cover the
net, figuring anyone who has space will announce their
longer prefix?

tricky stuff sits and waits to backfire on one. so the
older and lazier of us tend to play as close to the
straight and narrow as we can to get the job done.

randy

9

So, I'm not condoning this at all, just offering a possible explanation...
As was explained at one time on this list I think? Some folks will, in
favor of holding a complete 150k+ routes, hold large enough covering
routes internally and not most of the the smaller routes to save memory.
Something like 'almost default'... it confused me and it caused me some
pain so it seems like a bad thing. This seems to re-enforce that idea. (to
me atleast).

Perhaps someone will fix it? Where is the route leaking from TWTC in the
first place? A customer or ? Apparently only 14608 sees it at route-views?
Is alaska fiberstar listening tonight? a random sample of routerservers
off traceroute.org shows no one else with this route...

10

Christopher L. Morrow wrote:

11

oh well... back to twtc to see why they are leaking this route to their
customer :frowning:

12

"Christopher L. Morrow" <christopher.morrow@mci.com> writes:

route-server>sho ip route | inc 192.169
B 66.192.169.0/24 [200/0] via 168.215.52.9, 7w0d

[...]

B 192.169.0.0/16 [200/0] via 168.215.52.102, 7w0d

route-views.oregon-ix.net>sh ip bg 66.192.169.0
BGP routing table entry for 66.192.169.0/24, version 51229407
Paths: (1 available, best #1, table Default-IP-Routing-Table, not advertised to EBGP peer)
  Not advertised to any peer
  14608 4323
    209.161.175.4 from 209.161.175.4 (209.161.175.4)
      Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external, best
      Community: no-export

66.192.0.0/14 is TWTC. Relevant? << 8?

-dan