nanog mailing list archives
Re: "Defensive" BGP hijacking?
From: Jean-Francois Mezei <jfmezei_nanog () vaxination ca>
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2016 15:42:02 -0400
On 2016-09-12 14:15, Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu wrote:
I don't see "hijacking" in your description of the iStop case - it appears to have been fully coordinated and with permission.
While I am not sure about fully coordinated and with permission, it is an example where it was a desirable outcome to maintain service to customers who would otherwise have have been left without service. I pointed this as an example where "highjacking" can sometimes be desirable. An automated system would likekely block such announcements from ISP3 about ISP1's IP blocks pointing to ISP2's routers as it could be seen as highly suspect. Then again, with many mergers and acquisitions, this type or arrangement may be common as acquiring ISP1 may start to make BGP announcements of ISP2's IPs before those IPs have had time to be transfered.
Current thread:
- Re: "Defensive" BGP hijacking?, (continued)
- Re: "Defensive" BGP hijacking? Mel Beckman (Sep 12)
- Re: "Defensive" BGP hijacking? Florian Weimer (Sep 12)
- Re: "Defensive" BGP hijacking? Jared Mauch (Sep 12)
- Re: "Defensive" BGP hijacking? Paras Jha (Sep 12)
- Re: "Defensive" BGP hijacking? Mel Beckman (Sep 12)
- Re: "Defensive" BGP hijacking? Hugo Slabbert (Sep 12)
- Re: "Defensive" BGP hijacking? Jean-Francois Mezei (Sep 12)
- Re: "Defensive" BGP hijacking? Valdis . Kletnieks (Sep 12)
- Re: "Defensive" BGP hijacking? Jean-Francois Mezei (Sep 12)
- Re: "Defensive" BGP hijacking? Blake Hudson (Sep 12)
- Re: "Defensive" BGP hijacking? John Curran (Sep 12)
- Re: "Defensive" BGP hijacking? Mel Beckman (Sep 12)
- Re: "Defensive" BGP hijacking? Hugo Slabbert (Sep 12)
- Re: "Defensive" BGP hijacking? Blake Hudson (Sep 12)