nanog mailing list archives
Re: Low-numbered ASes being hijacked? [Re: BGP Update Report]
From: Joe Provo <nanog-post () rsuc gweep net>
Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2014 14:43:30 -0500
On Mon, Dec 01, 2014 at 12:53:07AM +0900, Paul S. wrote:
Do these people never check what exactly they end up originating outbound due to a config change, if that's really the case?
Of course not because their neighbors are allowing it to pass; so as with all hijacks, deaggregation, and other unfiltered noise, the only care is traffic going in and out. QA (let alone automated sanity checks) are alien concepts to many, and "well it works" is the answer from some when contacted. It smells like this is as PF surmises and might just be folks amenable to fixing it when contacted. We'll see... Cheers! Joe -- RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / CotSG / Usenix / NANOG
Current thread:
- BGP Update Report cidr-report (Nov 07)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- BGP Update Report cidr-report (Nov 14)
- BGP Update Report cidr-report (Nov 21)
- BGP Update Report cidr-report (Nov 28)
- Low-numbered ASes being hijacked? [Re: BGP Update Report] Simon Leinen (Nov 30)
- Re: Low-numbered ASes being hijacked? [Re: BGP Update Report] Pierfrancesco Caci (Nov 30)
- Re: Low-numbered ASes being hijacked? [Re: BGP Update Report] Paul S. (Nov 30)
- Re: Low-numbered ASes being hijacked? [Re: BGP Update Report] Valdis . Kletnieks (Nov 30)
- Re: Low-numbered ASes being hijacked? [Re: BGP Update Report] Stephen Satchell (Nov 30)
- Re: Low-numbered ASes being hijacked? [Re: BGP Update Report] Joe Provo (Nov 30)
- Re: Low-numbered ASes being hijacked? [Re: BGP Update Report] Jay Ashworth (Nov 30)
- Re: Low-numbered ASes being hijacked? [Re: BGP Update Report] Jason Bothe (Nov 30)
- Low-numbered ASes being hijacked? [Re: BGP Update Report] Simon Leinen (Nov 30)
- Re: Low-numbered ASes being hijacked? [Re: BGP Update Report] Andree Toonk (Nov 30)