[zanog-discuss] Poor Internet manners - Psychz Networks
donald.jolley at gmail.com
Fri May 28 21:46:05 SAST 2021
> On 28 May 2021, at 18:49, Jaco Kroon via zanog-discuss <zanog-discuss at lists.nog.net.za> wrote:
> So ... uless you're in DFZ you're not going to reach them?
> My traceroute [v0.94]
> plastiekpoot (192.168.1.106) -> 18.104.22.16821-05-28T18:48:06+0200
> Keys: Help Display mode Restart statistics Order of fields qu
> it Packets Pings
> Host Loss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst StDev
> 1. 192.168.1.1 0.0% 13 2.8 2.4 1.4 6.4 1.3
> 2. (waiting for reply)
> 3. 22.214.171.124 0.0% 13 8.0 8.4 7.4 12.8 1.5
> 4. 126.96.36.199 0.0% 13 6.7 20.1 6.3 98.9 30.0
> 5. 188.8.131.52 0.0% 13 7.7 12.0 6.9 47.1 11.6
> 6. 184.108.40.206 0.0% 13 6.7 7.1 5.8 7.8 0.5
> 7. (waiting for reply)
> Be it that they don't route back, or that the /24 blackholes inside the /17 ...
> Kind Regards,
> On 2021/05/28 14:25, Siyuan Miao via zanog-discuss wrote:
>> 220.127.116.11 seems to be an IP based in Dallas.
>> They do have a more specific announcement 18.104.22.168/24 <http://22.214.171.124/24>.
>> But if you only accept a default route from your transit and full peering routes from NAPAfrica / JINX, you will be routed to their IX port as you can only see 126.96.36.199/17 <http://188.8.131.52/17>.
>> On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 8:15 PM Mark Tinka via zanog-discuss <zanog-discuss at lists.nog.net.za <mailto:zanog-discuss at lists.nog.net.za>> wrote:
>> On 5/27/21 20:29, Ron B via zanog-discuss wrote:
>> > Can anyone do a tracert 184.108.40.206 past NAP or JINX with Psychz as a
>> > peer??? I can see Vox, IS, seacom and Vodacom works but they don't use NAP
>> > or JINX (for the path).
>> As I mentioned earlier in the week, we see them via transit in Europe.
>> AFAICT, we do not have local peering with them in Africa.
>> zanog-discuss mailing list
>> zanog-discuss at lists.nog.net.za <mailto:zanog-discuss at lists.nog.net.za>
>> http://lists.nog.net.za/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/zanog-discuss <http://lists.nog.net.za/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/zanog-discuss>
I agree with Tinka’s and others comments around filtering and forget….. but also tend to agree with the idea that if you peer with the Route Servers you should route the traffic….. unless I am missing something here.
It is becoming more apparent (and more common from what I see) that networks should be receiving a full feed from their upstream in order to correct peers that are advertising prefixes but not routing the traffic via their network.
in this example if one only receives at default from upstream but receives a /17 from peering it will attempt to send traffic out of peering. but the peer link goes into a blackhole as described by Jaco.
Happy to learn and be corrected in the way my peering is setup. what should my strategy be?
Should I not be peering with the Route Servers as a new peer to an IX by default because some network advertise prefixes but dont route them?
Being my usual self and asking stupid questions.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the zanog-discuss