On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 11:18 Warren Kumari <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 9:59 AM Joe Abley <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hey Joe, > > > > On 12 Jun 2019, at 12:37, Joe Provo <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 04:10:00PM +0000, David Guo via NANOG wrote: > > >> Send abuse complaint to the upstreams > > > > > > ...and then name & shame publicly. AS-path forgery "for TE" was > > > never a good idea. Sharing the affected prefix[es]/path[s] would > > > be good. > > > > I realise lots of people dislike AS_PATH stuffing with other peoples' AS > numbers and treat it as a form of hijacking. > > > > Actually, I've been meaning to start a thread on this for a while. > > I have an anycast prefix - at one location I'm a customer of a > customer of ISP_X & ISP_Y & ISP_Z. Because ISP_X prefers customer > routes, any time a packet touches ISP_X, it goes to this location, > even though it is (severely) suboptimal -- things would be better if > ISP_X didn't accept this route in this location. > > Now, the obvious answer of "well, just ask your provider in this > location to not announce it to ISP_X. That's what communities / the > telephone were invented for!" doesn't work for various (entirely > non-technical) reasons... > > Other than doing path-poisoning can anyone think of a way to > accomplish what I want? (modulo the "just become a direct customer > instead of being a customer of a customer" or "disable that site", or > "convince the AS upstream of you to deploy communities / filters"). > While icky, sometimes stuffing other people's AS in the path seems to > be the only solution... Given the prevalence of peerlock-style filters at the transit-free club, poisoning the path may result in a large outage for your prefix rather than a clever optimization. Poisoning paths is bad for all parties involved. Kind regards, Job
