Re: Can route-views be trusted?

(bgp.tools owner hat on)

It's entirely possible that things do actually get stuck in routing 
tables, and there [are/have been] some persistent bugs in especially 
Extreme OS around this particular failure mode for several years, there 
are also some similar bugs in certain configurations of JunOS that can 
easily cause this, FRR configured with weird flap dampening parameters 
can also do this...

Depending on the mission of the route collector collecting these stuck 
routes is either a feature ( it is interesting to study the propagation 
of these "stuck" routes ) or a bug ( it is annoying for customers to 
potentially see routes that are not really there )

To my understanding Route Views and RIS lean on the former category, 
bgp.tools tries (with some degree of success but not total) to remove 
the obviously stuck routes from the view because it has knock on issues 
for the usefulness of the rest of the platform



On 3/3/26 08:13, Hank Nussbacher via NANOG 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 properly withdrawn.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/

_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list 
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/NRSQZNRZFIORXQ74S7IQWI2GXCJTQPH7/