At 02:52 PM 5/28/2002 -0400, dre wrote: >""Peter van Oene"" wrote in message >[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > I'm not sure where to point you. All I can tell you is that it is > > commonplace and likely will continue to be so. I'm currently not aware of > > any routing issues that this behavior would induce. >""Howard C. Berkowitz"" wrote in message >[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > I'm not sure I could point you to anything more specific than the > > IDR, NANOG, and RIPE routing group archives. I hadn't noticed this > > desire of the RSNG; the impression I have was the inconsistent routes > > to be reported were those who were NOT registered in the IRR. Such > > unregistered routes are far more likely to be due to error. > > > > RFC 1930, while a wonderful document certainly worth reading by any > > CCIE candidate, is informational rather than standards-track. > >Ahem. >http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0110/lixia.html > >I know of many instances where this has been used to hijack traffic. >It's not just a rumor, this is real. AS3847 used to participate in such >overbearing rediculous practices (for fun and profit). > >Announcing inconsistent routes can also have many operational benefits. >Most of the "why" is included in the NANOG presentation, but not >necesarily the "how". > >-dre
Another nice reason for IRR based filtering. I suppose one could erroneously register space to support a hijack, but this would simply leave more of a trail. Thanks for the tip on the presentation, I hadn't see that one. Pete Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=45299&t=45299 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
