so... the subject is somewhat disingenious. there is no problem with a prefix being
announced by more than one ASN. Per the original subject, this seemed to be your gripe.
however, the thread has devolved into someone using network resources w/o registration...
which is different.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
so... the subject is somewhat disingenious. there is no
problem with a prefix being
announced by more than one ASN.
2001:590::/32 _is_ being announced by both AS4436 *and* AS4474.
Trying to contact these ASN's to inquire why that is happening
and maybe finding out if it was an erronous configuration I
tried to find the contacts which lead to AS4474 not having any
contact information available per ARIN registry.
Thus who do you call then when AS4436 doesn't seem home?
Indeed: ARIN, which also didn't seem home thus: NANOG.
Per the original subject, this seemed to be your gripe.
however, the thread has devolved into someone using network
resources w/o registration...
which is different.
It then turned into this indeed.
I have contacted quite a number of ISP's who had misconfigurations
and most, except AS10318 and this one, replied and thanked for
notifying them of this and they resolved the issue of which they
where not aware.
Greets,
Jeroen
I am fairly sure that I have seen real-life issues with at least one vendor's BGP implementation which led a valid route object with one origin to be masked by another valid route object with a different origin which was learnt earlier, a masking effect that continued even after the original masking route was withdrawn.
I don't have any solid documentation or results of experiments to support this, although it seemed very real at the time. It has always led me to promote the conservative practice of advertising routes with a consistent origin AS.
Bill: have you done any measurement exercises to determine whether this is, in fact, an issue? Or was your comment above based on the protocol, rather than deployed implementations of the protocol?
Joe
Using local-as to migrate sessions individually results in the appearence
of inconsistant origin ASs on locally originated routes. Who would have
thought local-as would bring down the wrath of the net k00ks. 
Next time you want to contact a noc, you might want to try not doing it as
a cc: to an e-mail encouraging random peers to depeer someone because of
an inconsistant origin AS caused by the use of local-as. Actions like that
(and these for that matter) tend to get one branded a net kook... And
feedings the kooks is never productive.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
>
> 2001:590::/32 _is_ being announced by both AS4436 *and* AS4474.
> Trying to contact these ASN's to inquire why that is happening
> and maybe finding out if it was an erronous configuration I
> tried to find the contacts which lead to AS4474 not having any
> contact information available per ARIN registry.
> Thus who do you call then when AS4436 doesn't seem home?
> Indeed: ARIN, which also didn't seem home thus: NANOG.Next time you want to contact a noc, you might want to try
not doing it as a cc: to an e-mail encouraging random peers
to depeer someone because of
an inconsistant origin AS caused by the use of local-as.
I wonder why many people are acting so hard about that small
mention of it, apparently that did take enough attention while
the subject at hand didn't get taken a look at at all.
For your pleasure below is the complete detailed message I sent to them.
If you still think that I am a 'kook' or other odd insults
then please keep them to yourself. I thought NANOG was for
Network Operators and not for flame wars and tidbits.
Actions like that
(and these for that matter) tend to get one branded a net kook... And
feedings the kooks is never productive.
Thank you very much for yet another insult, at least you are
polite enough to do it on a public mailinglist instead of
trying to mailbomb me. I still wonder why that is happening
as I was and still am trying to be friendly and hoping to
figure out why it is happening. FYI there are only 2 prefixes
that have this currently in the entire routing table but alas.
Greets,
Jeroen
- ----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
>
> 2001:590::/32 _is_ being announced by both AS4436 *and* AS4474.
> Trying to contact these ASN's to inquire why that is happening
> and maybe finding out if it was an erronous configuration I
> tried to find the contacts which lead to AS4474 not having any
> contact information available per ARIN registry.
> Thus who do you call then when AS4436 doesn't seem home?
> Indeed: ARIN, which also didn't seem home thus: NANOG.Next time you want to contact a noc, you might want to try
not doing it as a cc: to an e-mail encouraging random peers
to depeer someone because of an inconsistant origin AS
caused by the use of local-as. Actions like that
(and these for that matter) tend to get one branded a net kook... And
feedings the kooks is never productive.
The issue has been explained by a certain 'representative'
in a seperate mail. Apparently they have acquired a number
of networks amongst which they also AS4474 to/from which
they are migrating requiring the above setup.
Now let's hope that they will finish this migration soon
without problems and update the registry objects in question
so that in the future there can be no doubt about this even
when you are on the other side of the world and nothing
about such a migration is documented anywhere.
Greets,
Jeroen