spork@inch.COM (Charles Sprickman) writes:
>Yes, it appears Qwest was leaking routes, but they are fixing it...
Am I just silly to assume that it shouldn't take so long for such
well-funded companies to communicate with each other? AS286 is EUNet,
right? This all started sometime yesterday... I still see this:
BGP routing table entry for 206.97.128.0/19, version 10233204
Paths: (1 available, best #1)
3847 1239 1800 209 286 3561
207.240.48.45 from 207.240.48.45 (207.240.48.1)
Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external, best
Have you tried asking your upstream, Sprint (AS 1239) why they are
still listening to, and re-announcing the route? Was it the old
cisco bug, where routes sometimes get stuck in the route table due
to dropping the withdrawl? Or some other reason?
As part of the post-mortum, was everyone able to easily reach the
correct people at the responsible NOC's of other providers to resolve
this problem? I've been told in the past there are no communication
difficulties between the billion dollar providers, and bi-lateral
processes work well.
Yes. The leak (through 1800) was fixed rather quickly, but the
routes stuck. The fact that many (most?) of them were more specific
routes made the whole thing as "eventful" as it was; normally, selection
by path length means that leaks like that don't have any particular
effect. Hence, you actually had three things go wrong at the same time:
1) Wrong filtering.
2) More specific routes.
3) The routes stuck after withdrawal.
Have you tried asking your upstream, Sprint (AS 1239) why they are
still listening to, and re-announcing the route? Was it the old
cisco bug, where routes sometimes get stuck in the route table due
to dropping the withdrawl? Or some other reason?
My upstream is actually Genuity/GTEI (AS 3847). I've opened a ticket with
them, but it seems that the old Genuity parts of the network are suffering
from a certain amount of neglect. I used to have some direct contact
with the folks left at Genuity, but now my only route to support/help is
GTE/BBN's noc. The last response from them amounted to asking questions
about connectivity, what IP was I coming from and going to, etc. They
apparently ignored the little 'sh ip bgp' snippet I sent. They said it
was normal to transit sprint to get to mci/cw. I wouldn't think so, as
they have peering with mci/cw, but who knows.
FWIW, I still see this today, and I'm guessing this is the IOS bug you are
speaking of, either upstream or at my router... Time to poke around the
bug database...
Thanks,
Charles
As part of the post-mortum, was everyone able to easily reach the
correct people at the responsible NOC's of other providers to resolve
this problem? I've been told in the past there are no communication
difficulties between the billion dollar providers, and bi-lateral
processes work well.
--
Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO
Affiliation given for identification not representation
=-----------------= =
Charles Sprickman Internet Channel |
INCH System Administration Team (212)243-5200 |
spork@inch.com access@inch.com |
= =----------------=