nanog mailing list archives

Re: Low-numbered ASes being hijacked? [Re: BGP Update Report]


From: Jason Bothe <jason () rice edu>
Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2014 14:57:31 -0600

I’m not new here but the thread caught my eye, as I am one of the lower ASs being mentioned.  I guess there isn’t 
really anything one can do to prevent these things other than listening to route servers, etc.  I guess it’s all on 
what the upstream decides to allow-in and re-advertise.

Jason

Jason Bothe, Manager of Networking

                               o   +1 713 348 5500
                               m  +1 713 703 3552
                                      jason () rice edu




On 30, Nov 2014, at 2:37 PM, Jay Ashworth <jra () baylink com> wrote:

----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe Provo" <nanog-post () rsuc gweep net>

On Mon, Dec 01, 2014 at 12:53:07AM +0900, Paul S. wrote:
Do these people never check what exactly they end up originating
outbound due to a config change, if that's really the case?

Of course not because their neighbors are allowing it to
pass; so as with all hijacks, deaggregation, and other
unfiltered noise, the only care is traffic going in and
out. QA (let alone automated sanity checks) are alien
concepts to many, and "well it works" is the answer from
some when contacted.

That's sort of the BGP equivalent to BCP38 filtering, isn't it?

Cheers,
-- jra
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth                  Baylink                       jra () baylink com
Designer                     The Things I Think                       RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates       http://www.bcp38.info          2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA      BCP38: Ask For It By Name!           +1 727 647 1274



Current thread: