> the fun part is watching the bgp announce/withdraws in unallocated space.
> (no matter what microsoft may have learned from their survey, most isp's
> don't seem to care which prefixes their bgp-speaking customers advertise.)
So which ISPs are confused? Bogon's don't spontaneously occur in BGP.
Some ASN must originate them, and ASNs must pass them to other ASNs.
BGP helpfully includes the ASNs in the path.
geoff huston is the only person i know who's making formal progress on that
question. i know from some zebra log files that iana's unallocated space gets
advertised from time to time, then withdrawn. presumably an attack was launched
during the announcement but i don't have any data showing this.
What should be done about ASNs which repeatedly announce false or
unauthorized routes?
apparently, nothing. to the extent that peering is by agreement, the majority
of such agreements now in force do not require the other party to route-filter
their customers. which is funny, since they tend to drone on endlessly about
the importance of a 24x7 NOC, which in operational practice, matters lots less.
(btw, anybody signed a peering agreement which requires an abuse@ mailbox yet?)
geoff huston is the only person i know who's making formal progress on that
question. i know from some zebra log files that iana's unallocated space gets
advertised from time to time, then withdrawn. presumably an attack was launched
during the announcement but i don't have any data showing this.
Looking at one log, the most persistant announcer of bogon space is
AS 4554 (Bill Manning), Net 39.0.0.0/8.
I don't know Mr. Manning's intentions, malicious or otherwise.
apparently, nothing. to the extent that peering is by agreement, the majority
of such agreements now in force do not require the other party to route-filter
their customers. which is funny, since they tend to drone on endlessly about
the importance of a 24x7 NOC, which in operational practice, matters lots less.
I don't do peering anymore, but a peering agreement did include a
paragraph concerning route filtering. Sorry, but it got translated by
the lawyer along the way.
"The parties shall use through the Interconnection Point only Autonomous
System Numbers, Internet Protocol addresses, or other routing
identifiers assigned or delegated in accordance with IANA, a mutually
recognized address registry, or other mutually agreed procedure to the
party or its customers. The parties will use reasonable efforts to
screen routing identifiers not in compliance with this paragraph from
distribution across the Interconnection Point."
Of course, as you know, a peering agreement is about as enforcable as a
??? Well, I can't think of anything that unenforcable.