radar.qrator.net serves as a complementary view to bgp.he.net and AS205869 does show as peered with AS6939 there.
Jason On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 3:02 PM Ronald F. Guilmette <r...@tristatelogic.com> wrote: > > In message <20180724.090316.47077931.sth...@nethelp.no>, > sth...@nethelp.no wrote: > > >All prefixes still visible here (Oslo, Norway), through HE. Here's your > >original table augmented with the AS paths I see on our border routers: > > > >ASN Route AS path > >----------------------------------------------- > >10510 216.238.64.0/18 6939 205869 32226 10510 > >10737 207.183.96.0/20 6939 205869 7827 10737 > >10800 192.110.32.0/19 6939 205869 11717 10800 > >19529 104.143.112.0/20 6939 205869 11324 19529 > >19529 198.14.0.0/20 6939 205869 7827 19529 > >19529 198.32.208.0/20 6939 205869 7827 19529 > >19529 206.41.128.0/20 6939 205869 11324 19529 > >30237 192.73.128.0/20 6939 205869 11717 30237 > >30237 192.73.144.0/20 6939 205869 11717 30237 > >30237 192.73.160.0/20 6939 205869 11717 30237 > >30237 192.73.176.0/20 6939 205869 11717 30237 > > Thanks for checking this. I gather from the other posts in this thread > that this has already been rectified, and that the above CIDRs are no > longer reachable via HE.NET, correct? > > Even if that's the case, I'm still left scratching my head. There's a > bit of a mystery here, or at least something that I don't quite understand. > (NOTE: I've never laid claim to being anything like an "expert" when it > comes to all this routing stuff. I just muddle along and try to do the > best I can with the limited knowledge and understanding that I have.) > > So, here's what's perplexing me. You reported that all eleven of the > routes in the table above had AS paths that directly connected > Universal IP Solution Corp. (AS205869) to Hurricane Electric (AS6939). > And yet, when I looked at the following page, both yesterday and today, > I see no reported connection between those two ASNs: > > https://bgp.he.net/AS205869#_peers > > I already knew before now that each of the alleged peerings reported on > similar pages on the bgp.he.net web site had to be taken with a grain of > salt, mostly or entirely because of the kinds of hanky panky and path > forgery being undertaken by various bad guys. In at least some cases, > these screwy games appear to have caused bgp.he.net to list peerings that > didn't actually exist. > > But this is a rather entirely different case. In this case, it seems > that one very notable peering that -did- in fact exist, between AS205869 > and AS6939, was not reported at all on the bgp.he.net page linked to > above. > > To be clear, I most definitely am *not* suggeting any sort of deliberate > obfsucation here, on anybody's part. Rather, I just suspect that some > of the algorithms that are used to produce the peers lists on bgp.he.net > could use some... ah... fine tuning. It certainly seems to be true that > in this case, one very important peering was utterly missed by the > algorithms > that power bgp.he.net. > > > Regards, > rfg >