nanog mailing list archives
Re: "Defensive" BGP hijacking?
From: Bryant Townsend <bryant () backconnect com>
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2016 12:29:30 -0700
@ca & Matt - No, we do not plan to ever intentionally perform a non-authorized BGP hijack in the future. @Steve - Correct, the attack had already been mitigated. The decision to hijack the attackers IP space was to deal with their threats, which if carried through could have potentially lead to physical harm. Although the hijack gave us a unique insight into the attackers services, it was not a factor that influenced my decision. @Blake & Mel - We will likely cover some of these questions in a future blog post.
Current thread:
- Re: "Defensive" BGP hijacking?, (continued)
- Re: "Defensive" BGP hijacking? Bryant Townsend (Sep 13)
- Re: "Defensive" BGP hijacking? Ca By (Sep 13)
- Re: "Defensive" BGP hijacking? Matt Freitag (Sep 13)
- Re: "Defensive" BGP hijacking? Ryan, Spencer (Sep 13)
- Re: "Defensive" BGP hijacking? Blake Hudson (Sep 13)
- Re: "Defensive" BGP hijacking? Mel Beckman (Sep 13)
- Re: "Defensive" BGP hijacking? Doug Montgomery (Sep 13)
- Re: "Defensive" BGP hijacking? Ca By (Sep 13)
- Re: "Defensive" BGP hijacking? Sandra Murphy (Sep 14)
- Re: "Defensive" BGP hijacking? Ca By (Sep 13)
- Re: "Defensive" BGP hijacking? Bryant Townsend (Sep 13)
- Re: "Defensive" BGP hijacking? Bryant Townsend (Sep 13)
- Re: "Defensive" BGP hijacking? Ca By (Sep 13)
- Re: "Defensive" BGP hijacking? Blake Hudson (Sep 13)
- Re: "Defensive" BGP hijacking? Hank Nussbacher (Sep 13)