oh well, since this conversation got re-ingnited.. On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 1:15 AM, Job Snijders <[email protected]> wrote: > I think "type 5: U-Shaped Turn with More Specific Prefix" should be > removed from the document. > > Given the description: > > "A multi-homed AS learns a route from one upstream ISP and announces > a subprefix (subsumed in the prefix) to another upstream ISP." > > I'd classify this type of announcement a "hijack" or "attack", not a > route leak.
this makes sense to me, this is the equivalent of several well known instances of someone's 'internap' box leaking outside their span of control. So, I agree this is a hijack, not a leak... though clearly the subnets were 'leaked' outside the span of control, the effect is really a hijack of the remote prefix. _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
