Mailing List Archive

jamie g.k. rishaw wrote:
>
> Something wrong with this?
>
>
>
> > sho ip bgp 137.39.0.0 255.255.0.0
> BGP routing table entry for 137.39.0.0/16, version 533944
> Paths: (2 available, best #2, advertised over IBGP)
> 174
> 192.41.177.245 from 192.41.177.245
> Origin IGP, metric 30, localpref 100, valid, external
> Community: 2548:668
> 701
> 198.32.186.248 from 198.32.186.248 (137.39.3.57)
> Origin IGP, metric 2, localpref 100, valid, external, best
> Community: 2548:668
>
> *174*?
>

Hmm. That route looks ok to us where we learn it from PSI in New York:
100 BGP 137.39/16 195.11.50.2 (2529) 174 701 IGP


However, something is certainly odd somewhere:

GateD-beech.router.demon.net> show ip routes
100 IP radix tree: 94528 nodes, 49200 routes
GateD-beech.router.demon.net>

We have a few thousand more routes than normal, including this
more specific route that includes 'www.uu.net' that we see via
EBONE->ICM->Sprint but not via PSI or MCI.

GateD-beech.router.demon.net> show ip walkup 199.170.0.30
100 BGP 199.170/24 194.159.252.88 (2529) 5417 1755 1800 1239 701 IGP
100 BGP 199.170/15 195.11.50.2 (2529) 174 701 IGP


Anyone else seeing weirdness ?


Regards,
Andrew
--
Andrew Bangs, Network Engineering Team Leader, Demon Internet Ltd
andrewb@demon.net http://www.demon.net/ http://www.demon.nl/

48455 network entries (66405/172812 paths) using 10852340 bytes of memory

>Anyone else seeing weirdness ?
>
> Regards,
> Andrew

---

"Don't go with a spineless ISP;
we have more backbone."

Alex Rubenstein -- alex@nac.net -- KC2BUO -- www.nac.net
net @ccess corporation, 201-983-0725 -- 201-983-0725

>> Something wrong with this?
>>
>> sho ip bgp 137.39.0.0 255.255.0.0
>> BGP routing table entry for 137.39.0.0/16, version 533944
>> Paths: (2 available, best #2, advertised over IBGP)
>> 174
>> 192.41.177.245 from 192.41.177.245
>> Origin IGP, metric 30, localpref 100, valid, external
>> Community: 2548:668
>> 701
>> 198.32.186.248 from 198.32.186.248 (137.39.3.57)
>> Origin IGP, metric 2, localpref 100, valid, external, best
>> Community: 2548:668
>>
>> *174*?
>
> What's really criminal is that neither of them have NOCs.

From private mail I received, it is clear that I was being too subtle.

UUNET and PSI have perfectly fine NOCs. The problem was that Jamie seems
not to know how to use them and posts to nanog in stead.

Folk, it is no longer safe to assume that clueful folk from provider X read
this list. They have been driven off by the noise. Some weeks back, folk
on a private list asked for anyone who still read nanog to copy over any
useful message. None have been copied. This one certainly won't be. :-)

randy


PS: This is an actual bug. I do not think PSI has bought UUNET.