Re: bad announcement taxonomy

[Mattia Rossi <mattia.rossi.mailinglists () gmail com>]

Am 18.11.2015 um 13:08 schrieb William Herrin:
> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 6:51 AM, William Herrin <bill () herrin us> wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 5:06 AM, Randy Bush <randy () psg com> wrote:
> > > some friends and i were talking about recent routing cfs, and found we
> > > needed a clearer taxonomy.  i throw this out.
> > >
> > > leak - i receive P and send it on to folk to whom i should not send
> > >         it for business reasons (transit, peer, ...)
> > >
> > > mis-origination - i originate P when i do not own it
> > >
> > > hijack - an intentional mis-origination
> > >
> > > 7007 - i receive P (or some sub/superset), process it in some way
> > >         (likely through my igp), and re-originate it, or part of it,
> > >         as my own
> > >
> > > we need a name for 7007 other then vinnie
> > mis-origination. When you non-maliciously announce P as if you own it
> > (even though you do not) the exact details of how you screwed the
> > pooch are not externally important. And we have enough obscure names
> > for things as it is.
> For that matter, just call it a hijack like it is. Don't legitimize
> originating a prefix you don't own by giving it an innocuous name.

So probably it should be structured like this:

              _________ leak
            /
hijack ----------------- mis-origination (which should be better 
described as: I originate P when I don't have the right to)
           \__________ origin scrubbing (I like that)

It's a hijack (the result)  in any case. If you want to differentiate 
between malice and stupidity/ignorance just call it "malicious hijack" 
opposed to  "accidental hijack". And then list the cause (leak, 
mis-origination, origin scrubbing)

Cheers,

Mat