nanog mailing list archives
Re: _65000_ in as-path - paging 8544, 16229, 37958
From: Marshall Eubanks <tme () multicasttech com>
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 11:24:00 -0500
On Dec 10, 2008, at 11:08 AM, Cvetan Ivanov wrote:
Hi, Marshall Eubanks wrote:Is there some reason why 65000 is especially problematic ?65000 and above are private as numbers and should not be seen in the global table.
None of the numbers I included should be seen in the global tables, that is why I included them. However, these bogons are basically always there (not the same set, but something), and
I as far as I can tell they are fairly benign. The "private" ASN I have tracked down in the past have all been apparently innocent mistakes. If someone wanted to phish from an AS,there are lots of others that would not be so obvious. Right now, for example, I see 19 ASN from Afrnic blocks with no WHOIS info at all, which worries me rather more.
Regards Marshall
Cvetan -- Cvetan Ivanov System Administrator SpectrumNet Jsc.
Current thread:
- _65000_ in as-path - paging 8544, 16229, 37958 Andy Davidson (Dec 10)
- Re: _65000_ in as-path - paging 8544, 16229, 37958 Marshall Eubanks (Dec 10)
- Re: _65000_ in as-path - paging 8544, 16229, 37958 Cvetan Ivanov (Dec 10)
- Re: _65000_ in as-path - paging 8544, 16229, 37958 Marshall Eubanks (Dec 10)
- Re: _65000_ in as-path - paging 8544, 16229, 37958 Patrick W. Gilmore (Dec 10)
- Re: _65000_ in as-path - paging 8544, 16229, 37958 Joe Abley (Dec 11)
- Re: _65000_ in as-path - paging 8544, 16229, 37958 bill fumerola (Dec 11)
- Re: _65000_ in as-path - paging 8544, 16229, 37958 Cvetan Ivanov (Dec 10)
- Re: _65000_ in as-path - paging 8544, 16229, 37958 Marshall Eubanks (Dec 10)