Can I announce prefix 161.117.25.0/24 even though I don't have all of /24 IPs?
I'm managing one BGP router, under the router I'm trying to announce the following IP prefix:161.117.25.0/24
. But the problem is that some of the IP addresses were borrowed by other AS(Autonomous System), for example the IP address 161.117.25.100
and 161.117.25.200
were borrowed by other AS. So how should I announce the remaining IP addresses please.
Following questions please:
- Can I announce
161.117.25.0/30
? - Is it possible that two Autonomous Systems announce or have the same IP prefix?
router bgp
add a comment |
I'm managing one BGP router, under the router I'm trying to announce the following IP prefix:161.117.25.0/24
. But the problem is that some of the IP addresses were borrowed by other AS(Autonomous System), for example the IP address 161.117.25.100
and 161.117.25.200
were borrowed by other AS. So how should I announce the remaining IP addresses please.
Following questions please:
- Can I announce
161.117.25.0/30
? - Is it possible that two Autonomous Systems announce or have the same IP prefix?
router bgp
2
ISPs will only advertise/24
or shorter IPv4 prefixes. You need to ask your ISP if you can announce a longer prefix to it, but it will not advertise it to the Internet. No, two ASes advertising the same prefix will break things, and likely get both blocked.
– Ron Maupin♦
Feb 26 at 21:13
Is the prefix yours or not? It does not appear to be publicly assigned to you. It should go without saying that if the prefix is not yours, you can't announce it.
– David Schwartz
Feb 27 at 0:34
add a comment |
I'm managing one BGP router, under the router I'm trying to announce the following IP prefix:161.117.25.0/24
. But the problem is that some of the IP addresses were borrowed by other AS(Autonomous System), for example the IP address 161.117.25.100
and 161.117.25.200
were borrowed by other AS. So how should I announce the remaining IP addresses please.
Following questions please:
- Can I announce
161.117.25.0/30
? - Is it possible that two Autonomous Systems announce or have the same IP prefix?
router bgp
I'm managing one BGP router, under the router I'm trying to announce the following IP prefix:161.117.25.0/24
. But the problem is that some of the IP addresses were borrowed by other AS(Autonomous System), for example the IP address 161.117.25.100
and 161.117.25.200
were borrowed by other AS. So how should I announce the remaining IP addresses please.
Following questions please:
- Can I announce
161.117.25.0/30
? - Is it possible that two Autonomous Systems announce or have the same IP prefix?
router bgp
router bgp
edited Feb 27 at 6:31
Community♦
1
1
asked Feb 26 at 19:02
JackJack
1857
1857
2
ISPs will only advertise/24
or shorter IPv4 prefixes. You need to ask your ISP if you can announce a longer prefix to it, but it will not advertise it to the Internet. No, two ASes advertising the same prefix will break things, and likely get both blocked.
– Ron Maupin♦
Feb 26 at 21:13
Is the prefix yours or not? It does not appear to be publicly assigned to you. It should go without saying that if the prefix is not yours, you can't announce it.
– David Schwartz
Feb 27 at 0:34
add a comment |
2
ISPs will only advertise/24
or shorter IPv4 prefixes. You need to ask your ISP if you can announce a longer prefix to it, but it will not advertise it to the Internet. No, two ASes advertising the same prefix will break things, and likely get both blocked.
– Ron Maupin♦
Feb 26 at 21:13
Is the prefix yours or not? It does not appear to be publicly assigned to you. It should go without saying that if the prefix is not yours, you can't announce it.
– David Schwartz
Feb 27 at 0:34
2
2
ISPs will only advertise
/24
or shorter IPv4 prefixes. You need to ask your ISP if you can announce a longer prefix to it, but it will not advertise it to the Internet. No, two ASes advertising the same prefix will break things, and likely get both blocked.– Ron Maupin♦
Feb 26 at 21:13
ISPs will only advertise
/24
or shorter IPv4 prefixes. You need to ask your ISP if you can announce a longer prefix to it, but it will not advertise it to the Internet. No, two ASes advertising the same prefix will break things, and likely get both blocked.– Ron Maupin♦
Feb 26 at 21:13
Is the prefix yours or not? It does not appear to be publicly assigned to you. It should go without saying that if the prefix is not yours, you can't announce it.
– David Schwartz
Feb 27 at 0:34
Is the prefix yours or not? It does not appear to be publicly assigned to you. It should go without saying that if the prefix is not yours, you can't announce it.
– David Schwartz
Feb 27 at 0:34
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
That /24
is part of a larger block (161.117.0.0/16
) which is assigned to Alibabacom Singapore and announced by AS45102 (which is Alibaba again). My guess is that you're a customer of them and have been assigned a number of IP addresses to use from that /24
. However, that does not give you the right to advertise them under your own ASN in BGP. If you do so, it would be considered a BGP Hijack.
Hopefully, it wouldn't work very well due to filters in place at upstream networks, but if it would, IP addresses in that /24
used by others would become unreachable.
The conclusion here is: you don't announce the /24
unless you're authorized to do so.
add a comment |
Is it possible that two Autonomous Systems announce or have the same ip prefix?
It is entirely possible for multiple ASNs to announce the same prefix -- the shortest AS-PATH from any given perspective "wins". However, it's a poor practice that will trigger warnings in any BGP monitoring systems. (see also: route hijacking) If AS1 and AS2 both announce the same prefix, those closest to AS1 will prefer AS1; those closest to AS2 will prefer AS2. As long as you are connected to both ASNs it will usually work, but you've create a very fragile arrangement.
Beyond BGP (once routes are in the FIB), IP routing uses a longest-match algorithm. The /32 routes for 100 and 200 will match before the /24 (which will match before the /16, etc.) As others have already said, one cannot announce [BGP] anything more specific than /24 globally, so it would be up to you and/or your ISP(s) to make sure those two specific addresses are handled appropriately.
add a comment |
Just to be concrete, you advertise the blocks you do have. Given a "/24 without .100 and .200", the minimal number of blocks is 14:
A.B.C.0/26
A.B.C.64/27
A.B.C.96/30
A.B.C.101/32
A.B.C.102/31
A.B.C.104/29
A.B.C.112/28
A.B.C.128/26
A.B.C.192/29
A.B.C.201/32
A.B.C.202/31
A.B.C.204/30
A.B.C.208/28
A.B.C.224/27
Whether your ISP or other organisation will accept such long prefixes is a matter to take up with them: most ISPs have a limit shorter than /24/
Other, non-minimal, groupings are also possible in principle, up to the limiting case of 254 blocks each /32.
If 161.117.25.0/24 is assigned to a LAN, some trickery would be necessary to put 100 and 200 somewhere else. (I've done this very thing.) From a route table perspective, 161.117.25.0/24, 161.117.25.100/32, 161.117.25.200/32 do not create a conflict.
– Ricky Beam
Feb 27 at 0:21
@RickyBeam ... from the point of view of routes, certainly. As for advertising blocks across organisations, surely you only say what you actually have, per the other answers.
– jonathanjo
Feb 27 at 14:55
He announces the /24 and the others announce their /32. Of course, one can't globally route a /32, so he who has the /24 has to rig up a way to deliver the two /32's. (just like how the ISP announces a /16 to the world, and internally figures out how to divide it up)
– Ricky Beam
Feb 27 at 18:07
My understanding of the question is that the upstream ISP is cutting out the two /32s, not the owner of the nearly-/24.
– jonathanjo
Feb 27 at 21:09
add a comment |
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "496"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fnetworkengineering.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f57231%2fcan-i-announce-prefix-161-117-25-0-24-even-though-i-dont-have-all-of-24-ips%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
That /24
is part of a larger block (161.117.0.0/16
) which is assigned to Alibabacom Singapore and announced by AS45102 (which is Alibaba again). My guess is that you're a customer of them and have been assigned a number of IP addresses to use from that /24
. However, that does not give you the right to advertise them under your own ASN in BGP. If you do so, it would be considered a BGP Hijack.
Hopefully, it wouldn't work very well due to filters in place at upstream networks, but if it would, IP addresses in that /24
used by others would become unreachable.
The conclusion here is: you don't announce the /24
unless you're authorized to do so.
add a comment |
That /24
is part of a larger block (161.117.0.0/16
) which is assigned to Alibabacom Singapore and announced by AS45102 (which is Alibaba again). My guess is that you're a customer of them and have been assigned a number of IP addresses to use from that /24
. However, that does not give you the right to advertise them under your own ASN in BGP. If you do so, it would be considered a BGP Hijack.
Hopefully, it wouldn't work very well due to filters in place at upstream networks, but if it would, IP addresses in that /24
used by others would become unreachable.
The conclusion here is: you don't announce the /24
unless you're authorized to do so.
add a comment |
That /24
is part of a larger block (161.117.0.0/16
) which is assigned to Alibabacom Singapore and announced by AS45102 (which is Alibaba again). My guess is that you're a customer of them and have been assigned a number of IP addresses to use from that /24
. However, that does not give you the right to advertise them under your own ASN in BGP. If you do so, it would be considered a BGP Hijack.
Hopefully, it wouldn't work very well due to filters in place at upstream networks, but if it would, IP addresses in that /24
used by others would become unreachable.
The conclusion here is: you don't announce the /24
unless you're authorized to do so.
That /24
is part of a larger block (161.117.0.0/16
) which is assigned to Alibabacom Singapore and announced by AS45102 (which is Alibaba again). My guess is that you're a customer of them and have been assigned a number of IP addresses to use from that /24
. However, that does not give you the right to advertise them under your own ASN in BGP. If you do so, it would be considered a BGP Hijack.
Hopefully, it wouldn't work very well due to filters in place at upstream networks, but if it would, IP addresses in that /24
used by others would become unreachable.
The conclusion here is: you don't announce the /24
unless you're authorized to do so.
answered Feb 26 at 19:15
Teun Vink♦Teun Vink
12k53154
12k53154
add a comment |
add a comment |
Is it possible that two Autonomous Systems announce or have the same ip prefix?
It is entirely possible for multiple ASNs to announce the same prefix -- the shortest AS-PATH from any given perspective "wins". However, it's a poor practice that will trigger warnings in any BGP monitoring systems. (see also: route hijacking) If AS1 and AS2 both announce the same prefix, those closest to AS1 will prefer AS1; those closest to AS2 will prefer AS2. As long as you are connected to both ASNs it will usually work, but you've create a very fragile arrangement.
Beyond BGP (once routes are in the FIB), IP routing uses a longest-match algorithm. The /32 routes for 100 and 200 will match before the /24 (which will match before the /16, etc.) As others have already said, one cannot announce [BGP] anything more specific than /24 globally, so it would be up to you and/or your ISP(s) to make sure those two specific addresses are handled appropriately.
add a comment |
Is it possible that two Autonomous Systems announce or have the same ip prefix?
It is entirely possible for multiple ASNs to announce the same prefix -- the shortest AS-PATH from any given perspective "wins". However, it's a poor practice that will trigger warnings in any BGP monitoring systems. (see also: route hijacking) If AS1 and AS2 both announce the same prefix, those closest to AS1 will prefer AS1; those closest to AS2 will prefer AS2. As long as you are connected to both ASNs it will usually work, but you've create a very fragile arrangement.
Beyond BGP (once routes are in the FIB), IP routing uses a longest-match algorithm. The /32 routes for 100 and 200 will match before the /24 (which will match before the /16, etc.) As others have already said, one cannot announce [BGP] anything more specific than /24 globally, so it would be up to you and/or your ISP(s) to make sure those two specific addresses are handled appropriately.
add a comment |
Is it possible that two Autonomous Systems announce or have the same ip prefix?
It is entirely possible for multiple ASNs to announce the same prefix -- the shortest AS-PATH from any given perspective "wins". However, it's a poor practice that will trigger warnings in any BGP monitoring systems. (see also: route hijacking) If AS1 and AS2 both announce the same prefix, those closest to AS1 will prefer AS1; those closest to AS2 will prefer AS2. As long as you are connected to both ASNs it will usually work, but you've create a very fragile arrangement.
Beyond BGP (once routes are in the FIB), IP routing uses a longest-match algorithm. The /32 routes for 100 and 200 will match before the /24 (which will match before the /16, etc.) As others have already said, one cannot announce [BGP] anything more specific than /24 globally, so it would be up to you and/or your ISP(s) to make sure those two specific addresses are handled appropriately.
Is it possible that two Autonomous Systems announce or have the same ip prefix?
It is entirely possible for multiple ASNs to announce the same prefix -- the shortest AS-PATH from any given perspective "wins". However, it's a poor practice that will trigger warnings in any BGP monitoring systems. (see also: route hijacking) If AS1 and AS2 both announce the same prefix, those closest to AS1 will prefer AS1; those closest to AS2 will prefer AS2. As long as you are connected to both ASNs it will usually work, but you've create a very fragile arrangement.
Beyond BGP (once routes are in the FIB), IP routing uses a longest-match algorithm. The /32 routes for 100 and 200 will match before the /24 (which will match before the /16, etc.) As others have already said, one cannot announce [BGP] anything more specific than /24 globally, so it would be up to you and/or your ISP(s) to make sure those two specific addresses are handled appropriately.
answered Feb 27 at 0:15
Ricky BeamRicky Beam
22.3k23264
22.3k23264
add a comment |
add a comment |
Just to be concrete, you advertise the blocks you do have. Given a "/24 without .100 and .200", the minimal number of blocks is 14:
A.B.C.0/26
A.B.C.64/27
A.B.C.96/30
A.B.C.101/32
A.B.C.102/31
A.B.C.104/29
A.B.C.112/28
A.B.C.128/26
A.B.C.192/29
A.B.C.201/32
A.B.C.202/31
A.B.C.204/30
A.B.C.208/28
A.B.C.224/27
Whether your ISP or other organisation will accept such long prefixes is a matter to take up with them: most ISPs have a limit shorter than /24/
Other, non-minimal, groupings are also possible in principle, up to the limiting case of 254 blocks each /32.
If 161.117.25.0/24 is assigned to a LAN, some trickery would be necessary to put 100 and 200 somewhere else. (I've done this very thing.) From a route table perspective, 161.117.25.0/24, 161.117.25.100/32, 161.117.25.200/32 do not create a conflict.
– Ricky Beam
Feb 27 at 0:21
@RickyBeam ... from the point of view of routes, certainly. As for advertising blocks across organisations, surely you only say what you actually have, per the other answers.
– jonathanjo
Feb 27 at 14:55
He announces the /24 and the others announce their /32. Of course, one can't globally route a /32, so he who has the /24 has to rig up a way to deliver the two /32's. (just like how the ISP announces a /16 to the world, and internally figures out how to divide it up)
– Ricky Beam
Feb 27 at 18:07
My understanding of the question is that the upstream ISP is cutting out the two /32s, not the owner of the nearly-/24.
– jonathanjo
Feb 27 at 21:09
add a comment |
Just to be concrete, you advertise the blocks you do have. Given a "/24 without .100 and .200", the minimal number of blocks is 14:
A.B.C.0/26
A.B.C.64/27
A.B.C.96/30
A.B.C.101/32
A.B.C.102/31
A.B.C.104/29
A.B.C.112/28
A.B.C.128/26
A.B.C.192/29
A.B.C.201/32
A.B.C.202/31
A.B.C.204/30
A.B.C.208/28
A.B.C.224/27
Whether your ISP or other organisation will accept such long prefixes is a matter to take up with them: most ISPs have a limit shorter than /24/
Other, non-minimal, groupings are also possible in principle, up to the limiting case of 254 blocks each /32.
If 161.117.25.0/24 is assigned to a LAN, some trickery would be necessary to put 100 and 200 somewhere else. (I've done this very thing.) From a route table perspective, 161.117.25.0/24, 161.117.25.100/32, 161.117.25.200/32 do not create a conflict.
– Ricky Beam
Feb 27 at 0:21
@RickyBeam ... from the point of view of routes, certainly. As for advertising blocks across organisations, surely you only say what you actually have, per the other answers.
– jonathanjo
Feb 27 at 14:55
He announces the /24 and the others announce their /32. Of course, one can't globally route a /32, so he who has the /24 has to rig up a way to deliver the two /32's. (just like how the ISP announces a /16 to the world, and internally figures out how to divide it up)
– Ricky Beam
Feb 27 at 18:07
My understanding of the question is that the upstream ISP is cutting out the two /32s, not the owner of the nearly-/24.
– jonathanjo
Feb 27 at 21:09
add a comment |
Just to be concrete, you advertise the blocks you do have. Given a "/24 without .100 and .200", the minimal number of blocks is 14:
A.B.C.0/26
A.B.C.64/27
A.B.C.96/30
A.B.C.101/32
A.B.C.102/31
A.B.C.104/29
A.B.C.112/28
A.B.C.128/26
A.B.C.192/29
A.B.C.201/32
A.B.C.202/31
A.B.C.204/30
A.B.C.208/28
A.B.C.224/27
Whether your ISP or other organisation will accept such long prefixes is a matter to take up with them: most ISPs have a limit shorter than /24/
Other, non-minimal, groupings are also possible in principle, up to the limiting case of 254 blocks each /32.
Just to be concrete, you advertise the blocks you do have. Given a "/24 without .100 and .200", the minimal number of blocks is 14:
A.B.C.0/26
A.B.C.64/27
A.B.C.96/30
A.B.C.101/32
A.B.C.102/31
A.B.C.104/29
A.B.C.112/28
A.B.C.128/26
A.B.C.192/29
A.B.C.201/32
A.B.C.202/31
A.B.C.204/30
A.B.C.208/28
A.B.C.224/27
Whether your ISP or other organisation will accept such long prefixes is a matter to take up with them: most ISPs have a limit shorter than /24/
Other, non-minimal, groupings are also possible in principle, up to the limiting case of 254 blocks each /32.
edited Feb 26 at 21:46
answered Feb 26 at 21:40
jonathanjojonathanjo
12k1937
12k1937
If 161.117.25.0/24 is assigned to a LAN, some trickery would be necessary to put 100 and 200 somewhere else. (I've done this very thing.) From a route table perspective, 161.117.25.0/24, 161.117.25.100/32, 161.117.25.200/32 do not create a conflict.
– Ricky Beam
Feb 27 at 0:21
@RickyBeam ... from the point of view of routes, certainly. As for advertising blocks across organisations, surely you only say what you actually have, per the other answers.
– jonathanjo
Feb 27 at 14:55
He announces the /24 and the others announce their /32. Of course, one can't globally route a /32, so he who has the /24 has to rig up a way to deliver the two /32's. (just like how the ISP announces a /16 to the world, and internally figures out how to divide it up)
– Ricky Beam
Feb 27 at 18:07
My understanding of the question is that the upstream ISP is cutting out the two /32s, not the owner of the nearly-/24.
– jonathanjo
Feb 27 at 21:09
add a comment |
If 161.117.25.0/24 is assigned to a LAN, some trickery would be necessary to put 100 and 200 somewhere else. (I've done this very thing.) From a route table perspective, 161.117.25.0/24, 161.117.25.100/32, 161.117.25.200/32 do not create a conflict.
– Ricky Beam
Feb 27 at 0:21
@RickyBeam ... from the point of view of routes, certainly. As for advertising blocks across organisations, surely you only say what you actually have, per the other answers.
– jonathanjo
Feb 27 at 14:55
He announces the /24 and the others announce their /32. Of course, one can't globally route a /32, so he who has the /24 has to rig up a way to deliver the two /32's. (just like how the ISP announces a /16 to the world, and internally figures out how to divide it up)
– Ricky Beam
Feb 27 at 18:07
My understanding of the question is that the upstream ISP is cutting out the two /32s, not the owner of the nearly-/24.
– jonathanjo
Feb 27 at 21:09
If 161.117.25.0/24 is assigned to a LAN, some trickery would be necessary to put 100 and 200 somewhere else. (I've done this very thing.) From a route table perspective, 161.117.25.0/24, 161.117.25.100/32, 161.117.25.200/32 do not create a conflict.
– Ricky Beam
Feb 27 at 0:21
If 161.117.25.0/24 is assigned to a LAN, some trickery would be necessary to put 100 and 200 somewhere else. (I've done this very thing.) From a route table perspective, 161.117.25.0/24, 161.117.25.100/32, 161.117.25.200/32 do not create a conflict.
– Ricky Beam
Feb 27 at 0:21
@RickyBeam ... from the point of view of routes, certainly. As for advertising blocks across organisations, surely you only say what you actually have, per the other answers.
– jonathanjo
Feb 27 at 14:55
@RickyBeam ... from the point of view of routes, certainly. As for advertising blocks across organisations, surely you only say what you actually have, per the other answers.
– jonathanjo
Feb 27 at 14:55
He announces the /24 and the others announce their /32. Of course, one can't globally route a /32, so he who has the /24 has to rig up a way to deliver the two /32's. (just like how the ISP announces a /16 to the world, and internally figures out how to divide it up)
– Ricky Beam
Feb 27 at 18:07
He announces the /24 and the others announce their /32. Of course, one can't globally route a /32, so he who has the /24 has to rig up a way to deliver the two /32's. (just like how the ISP announces a /16 to the world, and internally figures out how to divide it up)
– Ricky Beam
Feb 27 at 18:07
My understanding of the question is that the upstream ISP is cutting out the two /32s, not the owner of the nearly-/24.
– jonathanjo
Feb 27 at 21:09
My understanding of the question is that the upstream ISP is cutting out the two /32s, not the owner of the nearly-/24.
– jonathanjo
Feb 27 at 21:09
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Network Engineering Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fnetworkengineering.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f57231%2fcan-i-announce-prefix-161-117-25-0-24-even-though-i-dont-have-all-of-24-ips%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
2
ISPs will only advertise
/24
or shorter IPv4 prefixes. You need to ask your ISP if you can announce a longer prefix to it, but it will not advertise it to the Internet. No, two ASes advertising the same prefix will break things, and likely get both blocked.– Ron Maupin♦
Feb 26 at 21:13
Is the prefix yours or not? It does not appear to be publicly assigned to you. It should go without saying that if the prefix is not yours, you can't announce it.
– David Schwartz
Feb 27 at 0:34