Re: Noisy prefixes in BGP

[Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists () gmail com>]

Philip, I’ve kept meaning to ask you for decades but did you ever find the root cause  of all this noise- is this due 
to a bug in some version of a router OS or is this being caused by a malfunctioning script at the provider that 
triggers BGP updates?

From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+ops.lists=gmail.com () nanog org> on behalf of Philip Smith <pfs () routeviews org>
Date: Monday, 10 February 2025 at 6:32 AM
To: James Bensley <lists+nanog () bensley me>
Cc: NANOG <nanog () nanog org>
Subject: Re: Noisy prefixes in BGP

I guess all we can do is keep highlighting the problem (I highlight
Geoff's BGP Update report almost every BGP Best Practice training I run
here in AsiaPac, for example) - but how to make noisy peers go away,
longer term...? :-(

> * These problems aren’t DFZ wide. Peer A might be sending a bajillion updates to peer B, but peer B sees there is no 
> change in the route and correctly doesn’t forward the update onwards to it’s peers / public collectors. So this is 
> probably happing a lot more than we see via RIS or RouteViews. Only some parts of the DFZ will be receiving the 
> gratuitous updates/withdraws.