It may be something like a default route is being used for that traffic due
to an upstream router that normally handles the default route not
forwarding such traffic that was destined to RFC1918 space. A traceroute to
the "weird" IP from other routers would help to indicate that.

On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 9:14 PM, Steve Jones <[email protected]>
wrote:

> yep, but those subnets aren't present on the network, first step on
> installation of a new mikrotik is default, remove config. Theres no routes
> in the tables to these subnets, and other than when I toss it on for
> testing those subnets don't exist anywhere in the network
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 8:32 PM, [email protected] <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Are you redistributing connected and/or static routes by chance?
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 4:40 PM, Steve Jones <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I don't know if this is normal to see or what. I cant figure it out
>>> We have sites that are all isolated by mikrotiks and use ospf between
>>> them
>>>
>>> what I'm seeing is stuff like site A having a customer on 1.2.3.4 at
>>> both sites A and B I'm seeing conversations between 1.2.3.4 from site A and
>>> 192.168.2.1 at site B. Site B does not have the 192.168.2 subnet even
>>> present. when I put an IP in that subnet on site B mikrotik I see a MAC
>>> matching that IP, it is also present for an actual customer, we will say
>>> 5.6.7.8
>>>
>>> I'm wondering if there isn't some form of tunnel between these two
>>> customers isolated by multiple routers that is leaking internal traffic out
>>> or something of that nature. I'm currently dropping that traffic now, I
>>> should have been from the get go, but what I don't understand is how, with
>>> no routes or subnets present this communication is even happening.
>>>
>>> Scared me assumes the CIA hacked all my mikrotiks, then hijacked
>>> customer routers and are somehow using my network to mine bitcoin to fund
>>> black site operations. Reality tells me its misconfiguration somewhere on
>>> my part
>>>
>>> any ideas?
>>>
>>
>>
>

Reply via email to