Wrong use of 100.64.0.0/10

Hi, probably this route is wrong, see RFC 6598, as you can see: show route 100.64.0.0/10 inet.0: 563509 destinations, 1528595 routes (561239 active, 0 holddown, 3898 hidden) + = Active Route, - = Last Active, * = Both 100.100.1.0/24 *[BGP/170] 2d 14:46:05, MED 100, localpref 100

Re: Wrong use of 100.64.0.0/10

Hi Justin, I know that we must filter this type of route, but AS9498 (upstream) MUST accept only correct networks. Or not ? Ciao, Marco 2015-10-02 16:52 GMT+02:00 Justin M. Streiner : > On Fri, 2 Oct 2015, Marco Paesani wrote: > > Hi, >> probably this route is wrong,

Re: Wrong use of 100.64.0.0/10

On Fri, 2 Oct 2015, Marco Paesani wrote: I know that we must filter this type of route, but AS9498 (upstream) MUST accept only correct networks. Or not ? They should filter out routes that are not supposed to be globally routable, but many providers don't do this, unfortunately. jms

Re: Wrong use of 100.64.0.0/10

On Fri, 2 Oct 2015, Marco Paesani wrote: Hi, probably this route is wrong, see RFC 6598, as you can see: show route 100.64.0.0/10 inet.0: 563509 destinations, 1528595 routes (561239 active, 0 holddown, 3898 hidden) + = Active Route, - = Last Active, * = Both 100.100.1.0/24 *[BGP/170] 2d

Re: Wrong use of 100.64.0.0/10

On 2 October 2015 at 16:10, Marco Paesani wrote: > Hi Justin, > I know that we must filter this type of route, but AS9498 (upstream) MUST > accept only correct networks. > Or not ? > Ciao, > Marco You are correct. AS-9730 shoudn't be advertising this range. AS-9498 shouldn't