nanog mailing list archives
Re: Potential Prefix Hijack
From: Nuno Vieira - nfsi telecom <nuno.vieira () nfsi pt>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 14:01:29 +0000 (WET)
That's not true, as not all our prefixes were hijacked nor leaked, since they were originating them. If they were leaking them you might be able to see further AS's on the AS-PATH, incluiding the legitimate AS for originating those prefixes. My point here is also about peers and upstreams to set properly filter or max-prefix settings to avoid those nasty things. Am i seeing things in a blur way ? or this is supposed to happen as wind flows ? regards, --- Nuno Vieira nfsi telecom, lda. nuno.vieira () nfsi pt Tel. (+351) 21 949 2300 - Fax (+351) 21 949 2301 http://www.nfsi.pt/ ----- "Raymond Dijkxhoorn" <raymond () prolocation net> wrote:
Hi!We were hijacked aswell, by 27664 16735 Our affected prefixes were: 94.46.0.0/16 194.88.142.0/23 194.11.23.0/24 82.102.0.0/18 195.246.238.0/23 194.107.127.0/24 81.92.192.0/19 193.227.238.0/23 We are trying to contact them in order to get some feedback, andsome good explanation for this. The obviously were leaking full routing, are we all gonna annnounce 'my prefix was in there also?' Bye, Raymond.
Current thread:
- RE: Potential Prefix Hijack, (continued)
- RE: Potential Prefix Hijack Scott Morris (Nov 10)
- RE: Potential Prefix Hijack Paul Kelly :: Blacknight (Nov 11)
- Re: Fwd: RE: Potential Prefix Hijack Scott Weeks (Nov 10)
- Re: Fwd: RE: Potential Prefix Hijack Hank Nussbacher (Nov 10)
- RE: Potential Prefix Hijack Kyle Duren (Nov 10)
- Re: Potential Prefix Hijack Nuno Vieira - nfsi telecom (Nov 11)
- Re: Potential Prefix Hijack Raymond Dijkxhoorn (Nov 11)
- Re: Potential Prefix Hijack Patrick W. Gilmore (Nov 11)
- Re: Potential Prefix Hijack Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET (Nov 11)
- Re: Potential Prefix Hijack Raymond Dijkxhoorn (Nov 11)
- Re: Potential Prefix Hijack Nuno Vieira - nfsi telecom (Nov 11)
- Re: Potential Prefix Hijack Raymond Dijkxhoorn (Nov 11)
- Re: Potential Prefix Hijack Raymond Dijkxhoorn (Nov 11)