RE: AS3549 Level3/GBLX carrying routing for 10.0.0.0/8
This should now be fixed. As a general matter of policy, we do filter out 10/8, but somehow the filter list for a customer was empty which then defaults to an implicit accept. We're in the process of improving our config audits to catch this in the future. Dave -Original Message- From: Larry Sheldon [mailto:larryshel...@cox.net] Sent: Saturday, July 20, 2013 10:31 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: AS3549 Level3/GBLX carrying routing for 10.0.0.0/8 On 7/20/2013 11:26 PM, Yang Yu wrote: It appears AS3549 is announcing 10.0.0.0/8. I noticed it from an AS3549 customer. I wonder why people don't drop any update that contains stuff like RFC 1918 space. -- Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics of System Administrators: Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to learn from their mistakes. (Adapted from Stephen Pinker)
Re: AS3549 Level3/GBLX carrying routing for 10.0.0.0/8
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Siegel, David david.sie...@level3.com wrote: This should now be fixed. As a general matter of policy, we do filter out 10/8, but somehow the filter list for a customer was empty which then defaults to an implicit accept. We're in the process of improving our config audits to catch this in the future. what happens if they register a route object for 10/8? :) Dave -Original Message- From: Larry Sheldon [mailto:larryshel...@cox.net] Sent: Saturday, July 20, 2013 10:31 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: AS3549 Level3/GBLX carrying routing for 10.0.0.0/8 On 7/20/2013 11:26 PM, Yang Yu wrote: It appears AS3549 is announcing 10.0.0.0/8. I noticed it from an AS3549 customer. I wonder why people don't drop any update that contains stuff like RFC 1918 space. -- Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics of System Administrators: Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to learn from their mistakes. (Adapted from Stephen Pinker)
Re: AS3549 Level3/GBLX carrying routing for 10.0.0.0/8
Perhaps we should all take a moment and review RFC 5735, 6598, 6890, and 5156 and implement filtering in the appropriate places and help make the Internet a safer place to play. Think of the children! ...heh --chip On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Christopher Morrow morrowc.li...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Siegel, David david.sie...@level3.com wrote: This should now be fixed. As a general matter of policy, we do filter out 10/8, but somehow the filter list for a customer was empty which then defaults to an implicit accept. We're in the process of improving our config audits to catch this in the future. what happens if they register a route object for 10/8? :) Dave -Original Message- From: Larry Sheldon [mailto:larryshel...@cox.net] Sent: Saturday, July 20, 2013 10:31 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: AS3549 Level3/GBLX carrying routing for 10.0.0.0/8 On 7/20/2013 11:26 PM, Yang Yu wrote: It appears AS3549 is announcing 10.0.0.0/8. I noticed it from an AS3549 customer. I wonder why people don't drop any update that contains stuff like RFC 1918 space. -- Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics of System Administrators: Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to learn from their mistakes. (Adapted from Stephen Pinker) -- Just my $.02, your mileage may vary, batteries not included, etc
Re: AS3549 Level3/GBLX carrying routing for 10.0.0.0/8
On 7/20/2013 11:26 PM, Yang Yu wrote: It appears AS3549 is announcing 10.0.0.0/8. I noticed it from an AS3549 customer. I wonder why people don't drop any update that contains stuff like RFC 1918 space. -- Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics of System Administrators: Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to learn from their mistakes. (Adapted from Stephen Pinker)
