nanog mailing list archives

Re: questions regarding prefix hijacking


From: Paul Donner <pdonner () cisco com>
Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2013 16:22:08 -0600

It appears AS3549 is announcing 10.0.0.0/8. I noticed it from an
AS3549 customer.

From GBLX looking glass, ATL1

traceroute
Protocol [ip]: ip
Target IP address: 10.0.0.1
Source address:
Numeric display [n]: n
Timeout in seconds [3]: 1
Probe count [3]: 2
Minimum Time to Live [1]: 1
Maximum Time to Live [30]: 30
Port Number [33434]:
Loose, Strict, Record, Timestamp, Verbose[none]:
Type escape sequence to abort.
Tracing the route to 10.0.0.1
VRF info: (vrf in name/id, vrf out name/id)
  1 te3-1-10G.par9.CTA1.GRU.gblx.net (67.16.142.26) 120 msec 124 msec
  2 122.5.125.189.static.impsat.net.br (189.125.5.122) 120 msec 120 msec
  3 10.0.0.1 [AS 262487] 124 msec 120 msec

Apparently the customer didn't have proper inbound filter......
Reply from 10.0.0.1: bytes=32 time=132ms TTL=61




On 08/07/2013 02:20 AM, Martin T wrote:
Hi,

as probably many of you know, it's possible to create a "route" object
to RIPE database for an address space which is allocated outside the
RIPE region using the RIPE-NCC-RPSL-MNT maintainer object. For example
an address space is from APNIC or ARIN region and AS is from RIPE
region. For example a LIR in RIPE region creates a "route" object to
RIPE database for 157.166.266.0/24(used by Turner Broadcasting System)
prefix without having written permission from Turner Broadcasting
System and as this LIR uses up-link providers who create prefix
filters automatically according to RADb database entries, this ISP is
soon able to announce this 157.166.266.0/24 prefix to Internet. This
should disturb the availability of the real 157.166.266.0/24 network
on Internet? Has there been such situations in history? Isn't there a
method against such hijacking? Or have I misunderstood something and
this isn't possible?


regards,
Martin




Current thread: