route for linx.net in Level3?

Having trouble reaching route-views.linx.routeviews.org from AS3582.

I'm assuming that some folks stopped carrying
this particular linx.net address prefix
as of this morning. ?!?

$ whois -h whois.cymru.com " -v 195.66.241.146"
AS | IP | BGP Prefix | CC | Registry |
Allocated | AS Name
5459 | 195.66.241.146 | 195.66.240.0/22 | GB | ripencc |
1997-12-01 | LINX-AS London Internet Exchange Ltd.

$ dig +short 146.241.66.195.peer.asn.cymru.com TXT
"1299 2914 3257 10310 | 195.66.240.0/22 | GB | ripencc | 1997-12-01"

Hi John,

I noticed it too this morning from a AS3549 customer. Level 3 LG shows
no route for 195.66.232.0/22 on North American sites.

oops! i have a host directly on the linx on which i can give you
shell access

Yes. In the fallout from the Cloudflare attack of last week it was
announced that several IXs were going to stop advertising the
address space of their peering lan, which properly does not need to
be advertised anyway.

Yes, that will cause some minor problems for those who work for and
with the companies that peer there, but they are *clients*, and should
be able to have other similar arrangements made for them.

Cheers,
-- jra

In a message written on Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 02:57:11PM -0400, Jay Ashworth wrote:

Yes. In the fallout from the Cloudflare attack of last week it was
announced that several IXs were going to stop advertising the
address space of their peering lan, which properly does not need to
be advertised anyway.

Well, now that's a big maybe. I was a big advocate for the peering
exchanges each having their own ASN and announcing the peering block
back in the day, and it seems people may have forgotten some of the
issues with unadvertised peering exchange blocks.

It breaks traceroute for many people:

  The ICMP TTL Unreachable will come from a non-routed network (the
  exchange LAN). If it crosses another network boundary doing uRPF,
  even in loose mode, those unreachables will be dropped.

  It also reduces the utility of a tool like MTR. Without the ICMP
  responese it won't know where to ping, and even if it receives
  the ICMP it's likely packets towards the LAN IP's will be dropped
  with no route to host.

It has the potential to break PMTU discovery for many people:

  If a router is connected to the exchange and a lower MTU link a
  packet coming in with DF set will get an ICMP would-fragment
  reply. Most vendors source from the input interface, e.g. the
  exchange IP. Like the traceorute case, if crosses another network
  boundary doing uRPF, even in loose mode, those ICMP messages
  will be lost, resulting in a PMTU black hole.

  Some vendors have knobs to force the ICMP to be emitted from a
  loopback, but not all. People would have to turn it on.

But hey, this is a good thing because a DDOS caused issues, right?
Well, not so much. Even if the exchange does not advertise the
exchange LAN, it's probably the case that it is in the IGP (or at
least IBGP) of everyone connected to it, and by extension all of
their customers with a default route pointed at them. For the most
popular exchanges (AMS-IX, for instance) I suspect the percentage
of end users who can reach the exchange LAN without it being
explicitly routed to be well over 80%, perhaps into the upper 90%
range. So when those boxes DDOS, they are going to all DDOS the
LAN anyway.

Security through obscurity does not work. This is going to annoy some
people just trying to do their day job, and not make a statistical
difference to the attackers trying to take out infrastructure.

How about we all properly implement BCP 38 instead?

But hey, this is a good thing because a DDOS caused issues, right?
Well, not so much. Even if the exchange does not advertise the
exchange LAN, it's probably the case that it is in the IGP (or at
least IBGP) of everyone connected to it, and by extension all of
their customers with a default route pointed at them. For the most
popular exchanges (AMS-IX, for instance) I suspect the percentage
of end users who can reach the exchange LAN without it being
explicitly routed to be well over 80%, perhaps into the upper 90%
range. So when those boxes DDOS, they are going to all DDOS the
LAN anyway.

Yes, thats why everyone needs to set up some sanity in their networks.

This was presented at an APNIC conference a little while back:
http://conference.apnic.net/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/50706/apnic34-mike-jager-securing-ixp-connectivity_1346119861.pdf

hundreds of networks are improperly set up and are being abused (and
abusing) to the IXP LANs.

Security through obscurity does not work. This is going to annoy some
people just trying to do their day job, and not make a statistical
difference to the attackers trying to take out infrastructure.

This isn't security through obscurity. This is saving the IXP from
getting 100's of G's over transit, which should just be for their
corporate network.

How about we all properly implement BCP 38 instead?

Agree.

First of all I agree with Leo that not advertising IX prefixes permanently
causes more problems than it solves.

Even if the exchange does not advertise the exchange LAN, it's probably

the case that it is in the IGP (or at least IBGP) of everyone connected to
it
Well if I would peer with such an ISP at London and Frankfurt I could
create a GRE tunnel from London to Frankfurt via the other ISP and use it to
transport packets that would otherwise have to traverse my backbone.
Or if my peer has a router at IX that happens to have full routing view I
can just point a static default toward it and have a free transit.

Check out: http://www.bcp38.info
adam

Right on. :slight_smile:

- ferg

Yeah, you wouldn't think that one should fall out.
It is possible that my 195.66.241.146 really should
be something sitting within: 195.66.232.0/22.

I'll have to talk with some of the LINX folks to
understand whether they are intending that 195.66.240.0/22
and 195.66.232.0/22 are treated differently. If that's the
case, I may need to move off of 195.66.240.0/22.

Thanks,
John Kemp (kemp@routeviews.org)