Print

Print

On 02/08/2019 02:55 PM, Richard Laager wrote:
[log in to unmask]" type="cite"> 
On 2/8/19 2:30 PM, Frank Bulk wrote:

I saw the following Thursday afternoon:

Feb  7 15:21:54 207.32.15.28 Rib: mpbgp_recv_mpreach: peer 2001:504:27::d1af:0:1 (AS 53679) link-local next hop fe80::e2ac:f1ef:fe4b:d93b%10000 improper, ignoring this next-hop
Feb  7 15:22:09 207.32.15.28 Rib: mpbgp_recv_mpreach: peer 2001:504:27::d1af:0:2 (AS 53679) link-local next hop fe80::e2ac:f1ef:fe4b:d93b%10000 improper, ignoring this next-hop

That link local address seems to (other than a 2 vs 0) match MAC address
e0ac.f14b.d93b, which is currently in my ARP cache for 206.108.255.119,
which is Paul Bunyan Telephone. I wonder if their router advertised a
link local nexthop to the route servers.

Perhaps the route servers should be filtering the next hop? At a
minimum, it seems like we should limit it to the MICE address space. But
if trivial to implement, it would be best if the nexthop was that of the
peer.

I'm not sure what happened there, but, the timing corresponds to a change we made yesterday when we moved our MICE connection from one bundle-ethernet to another on one of our routers. 



To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link:
http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1