nanog mailing list archives
Re: "Defensive" BGP hijacking?
From: "Scott Weeks" <surfer () mauigateway com>
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2016 14:45:09 -0700
--- jfmezei_nanog () vaxination ca wrote: From: Jean-Francois Mezei <jfmezei_nanog () vaxination ca> I got to think about this (dangerous thing :-( Ideally, law enforcement should have the smarts and tools to get involved in DDoS and other similar situations and have the power to compell upstream provider(s) to shut service to a suspect. --------------------------------------------------------- Yes, getting law enforcement involved in BGP and network engineering in any way is a dangerous thing. I agree 100%. scott
Current thread:
- Re: "Defensive" BGP hijacking?, (continued)
- Re: "Defensive" BGP hijacking? Christopher Morrow (Sep 18)
- Re: "Defensive" BGP hijacking? Jean-Francois Mezei (Sep 14)
- Re: "Defensive" BGP hijacking? Bryan Fields (Sep 14)
- Re: "Defensive" BGP hijacking? Christopher Morrow (Sep 14)
- Re: "Defensive" BGP hijacking? John Curran (Sep 19)
- Re: "Defensive" BGP hijacking? Christopher Morrow (Sep 19)
- Re: "Defensive" BGP hijacking? John Curran (Sep 20)
- Re: "Defensive" BGP hijacking? Christopher Morrow (Sep 20)
- Re: "Defensive" BGP hijacking? John Curran (Sep 20)
- Re: "Defensive" BGP hijacking? Rich Kulawiec (Sep 14)
- Re: "Defensive" BGP hijacking? Sean Rose (Sep 18)