Something wrong with this?
sho ip bgp 137.39.0.0 255.255.0.0
BGP routing table entry for 137.39.0.0/16, version 533944
Paths: (2 available, best #2, advertised over IBGP)
174
192.41.177.245 from 192.41.177.245
Origin IGP, metric 30, localpref 100, valid, external
Community: 2548:668
701
198.32.186.248 from 198.32.186.248 (137.39.3.57)
Origin IGP, metric 2, localpref 100, valid, external, best
Community: 2548:668
*174*?
Something wrong with this?
sho ip bgp 137.39.0.0 255.255.0.0
BGP routing table entry for 137.39.0.0/16, version 533944
Paths: (2 available, best #2, advertised over IBGP)
174
192.41.177.245 from 192.41.177.245
Origin IGP, metric 30, localpref 100, valid, external
Community: 2548:668
701
198.32.186.248 from 198.32.186.248 (137.39.3.57)
Origin IGP, metric 2, localpref 100, valid, external, best
Community: 2548:668*174*?
What's really criminal is that neither of them have NOCs.
randy
Something wrong with this?
sho ip bgp 137.39.0.0 255.255.0.0
BGP routing table entry for 137.39.0.0/16, version 533944
Paths: (2 available, best #2, advertised over IBGP)
174
192.41.177.245 from 192.41.177.245
Origin IGP, metric 30, localpref 100, valid, external
Community: 2548:668
701
198.32.186.248 from 198.32.186.248 (137.39.3.57)
Origin IGP, metric 2, localpref 100, valid, external, best
Community: 2548:668*174*?
What's really criminal is that neither of them have NOCs.
From private mail I received, it is clear that I was being too subtle.
UUNET and PSI have perfectly fine NOCs. The problem was that Jamie seems
not to know how to use them and posts to nanog in stead.
Folk, it is no longer safe to assume that clueful folk from provider X read
this list. They have been driven off by the noise. Some weeks back, folk
on a private list asked for anyone who still read nanog to copy over any
useful message. None have been copied. This one certainly won't be. 
randy
PS: This is an actual bug. I do not think PSI has bought UUNET.