On 11/2/15 8:39 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote: > 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.
hijack is the practical result of the more specific. intent is of course something else. > _______________________________________________ > GROW mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
