[c-nsp] iBGP not propogating route to 0/8

[David Sinn]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On May 15, 2008, at 2:31 PM, Justin Shore wrote:

> I can't think of any reason why this prefix wouldn't be advertised.   
> Any
> ideas?  I noticed it today because I have customers trying to hit 0/8
> IPs (0.4.24.200 for example) that my egress ACLs are catching.

This is due to how Cisco treats martian networks per their  
interpretation (or real meaning) of RFC 1812.  Since the following are  
martians, to cover the "Should not" route part of 5.3.7, they won't  
install them in the route table.

0.0.0.0/8
127.0.0.0/8
128.0.0.0/16
181.255.0.0/16
192.0.0.0/24
233.255.255.0/24
240.0.0.0/4

I've only personally tested 240.0.0.0/4 and it will not install in the  
route table.  I've also not tried to figure out what more or less  
specific routes you could try and install to cover these blocks.

David


> Thanks
>  Justin
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin)

iEYEARECAAYFAkgtsPYACgkQLa9jIE3ZamNprgCfUAoV0GXj0Ob1HNg8pyifER1a
6T8AoIWpvrB87i+VjRmp3avNPNRTJAV8
=1Klc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----