seeing the trees in the forest of confusion

Avi Freedman wrote:

> I agree that there appears to be some underlying problem with the BGP code
> on the backbone that is delaying route withdrawals beyond a reasonable
> time. We ran into a similar problem Wednesday night where one of our
> customers started advertising more specifics for our network blocks to
> another transit provider (who does not filter customer routes). After
> shutting down the customer's BGP peering, the bogus routes were still in
> the table an hour later at which time we started advertising our own more
> specifics to restore service to our other customers -- this lead to our
> unfortunate position in Thursday's CIDR report.

Were they in as dampened; history; or just in as if they were in and had
not flapped?

Dampened is what I saw looking at the digex looking glasses. And some
of them had times >1 hour.

Dampening of more specific bogus announcements is a problem I'd like to
see addressed, since the more general (and correct) routes won't be used
if more specifics are dampened.

I agree that this is a problem.

Larry Rosenman (AS6243)