nanog mailing list archives
Re: AS9498 Bharti BGP hijacks
From: Youssef Bengelloun-Zahr <bengelly () gmail com>
Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2017 00:09:41 +0200
Hi, What's more concerning here is that those prefixes were able to pass through all filters on their way, via their transits and maybe probably via their peers as well. Haven't we been here before !?! And here I thought 2017 internet would be a "safer" place. Silly me... Y.
Le 1 avr. 2017 à 23:33, Job Snijders <job () instituut net> a écrit : Hi all, Perhaps another explanation is that these are router2router linknets between the involved parties, and all we are seeing is the effect of "redistribute connected". If this is the case, the word "hijack" might be somewhat strong worded. Kind regards, Job On Sat, 1 Apr 2017 at 23:25, Tyler Conrad <tyler () tgconrad com> wrote: So not only are they hijacking prefixes, they're leaking the /30s to their peers. Failure through and through. On Saturday, April 1, 2017, George William Herbert <george.herbert () gmail com wrote:Hey, Bharti, knock that off. http://bgpstream.com/event/78126 http://bgpstream.com/event/78125 http://bgpstream.com/event/78124 http://bgpstream.com/event/78123 http://bgpstream.com/event/78122 Sent from my iPhone
Current thread:
- AS9498 Bharti BGP hijacks George William Herbert (Apr 01)
- Re: AS9498 Bharti BGP hijacks Tyler Conrad (Apr 01)
- Re: AS9498 Bharti BGP hijacks Job Snijders (Apr 01)
- Re: AS9498 Bharti BGP hijacks Youssef Bengelloun-Zahr (Apr 01)
- Re: AS9498 Bharti BGP hijacks netravnen+nanog (Apr 02)
- Re: AS9498 Bharti BGP hijacks Job Snijders (Apr 01)
- Re: AS9498 Bharti BGP hijacks Tyler Conrad (Apr 01)