Hi, (forgot list)
On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 14:40:14 +0100, Fredy Kuenzler <[email protected]> wrote: > Am 17.11.2010 10:19, schrieb Fredy Kuenzler: >> >> 4739 45158 {64512 64514 64516 64519 64521 64522 64525 64526 64528 64529 >> 64530 64535 64537 64538 64541 64542 64543 64544 64545 64546 64547 64548 >> 64549 64552 64553 64556 64557 64560 64561 64562 64564 64565 64566 64568 >> 64569 64570 64574 64575 64576 64577 64578 64580 64582 64583 64584 64588 >> 64593 64598 64599 64601 64602 64605 64610 64611 64620 64621 65397 65398 >> 65470 65471 65472 65473 65474 65479 65480 65484 65485 65490 65502 65505 >> 65511 65514 65523 65524 65528 65534 65609} ? > > The propagation itself of the originator is rather uncommon, I'd say, > as we can see, it's a BGP confederation of not less than 77 private AS > numbers. Don't know for what it should be useful... one minor correction here: 65609 is no private ASN, its a reserved one in ASN32 Space (65609 > 65535, which is 2^16-1). looking at my junipers sh rou ... detail, it showed me the AS_SET with AS_TRANS in ASN16_PATH, and AS65609 in ASN32_PATH and ASN-MERGED_PATH. What surprised me a bit was that AS_TRANS was at the beginning of the AS_SET, while 65609 was listed at the end of the AS_SET; which may or may be an issue of presentation only, or may or maybe a problem. In the end it wouldnt surprise me if one or another implementation would screw up exactly because of ASN32 here. my 2c, -mc
