Re: Can route-views be trusted?
Saku Ytti via NANOG <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.org.operators.nanog |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAAeewD_V0KUEvZ-6xcMqf8Cz3JkpQAKiEzJX5-4Y3cJZsp3jgg@mail.gmail.com> |
Occam's Razor would suggest F5 didn't withdraw it. What they say is possible (ghosting), but not the most likely explanation. I think the burden of proof is at F5, asking to review the BGP sessions for advertised routes in their devices over shared sessions. I don't expect malice, I expect incompetence. On Tue, 3 Mar 2026 at 10:14, Hank Nussbacher via NANOG <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > > We had F5 announce a /24 on our behalf. We then asked F5 to withdraw > that /24. Route-views showed the /24 still being announced via an F5 > path. F5 claims that route-views is incorrect and the route had been > properly withdrawn. They state that public route collectors (including > route-views) reflect what their individual collector peers are seeing at > a given moment. Due to propagation timing, peer refresh intervals, and > collector update cycles, visibility across different monitoring > platforms is not always perfectly synchronized in real time. > > > Have others seen this type of issues from route-views? > > > Thanks, > > Hank > > _______________________________________________ > NANOG mailing list > https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/GF6SKJK2X3NCOELFTAHZOTRO62DH5G6O/ -- ++ytti _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/OCOJRXQEI7EO7KDIIQKL4RGEKUSJOUOL/