Re: Prefix hijacking by AS20115

["Rampley Jr, Jim F" <jim.rampley () charter com>]

On 9/29/15, 9:49 AM, "Seth Mattinen" <sethm () rollernet us> wrote:


> On 9/29/15 7:26 AM, Rampley Jr, Jim F wrote:
> > On 9/28/15, 10:24 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Seth Mattinen"
> > <nanog-bounces () nanog org on behalf of sethm () rollernet us> wrote:
> >
> > > On 9/28/15 20:19, Martin Hannigan wrote:
> > > > Is this related to 104.73.161.0/24? That's ours. :-)
> > > >
> > > > We'll take a look and get back to you.  Thanks for caring!
> > >
> > >
> > > Yep, that's one of the affected prefixes.
> > >
> > > ~Seth
> > Hi Seth, which market was this occurring?  Was this already removed?
> > I'm
> > not seeing it this morning.  I would like to figure out what went wrong
> > here.  We shouldn't be nailing up any static configuration to have
> > caused
> > a situation like this.
>
>
> Reno, NV. I do believe they've finally withdrawn this morning (I just
> woke up, it was a long night).
>
> ~Seth
This issue was caused by a hung BGP process which was resolved last night.
 Nothing nefarious.  No static configuration nailed up, no BGP highjacking
purposely done. ;)