On Sep 22, 2008, at 9:06 PM, Scott Weeks wrote:




I am hoping to confirm a short-duration prefix hijack of 72.234.0.0/15 (and another of our prefixes) by ASN 8997 ("OJSC North- West Telecom" in Russia) in using ASN 3267 (Russian Federal University Network) to advertise our space to ASN 3277 (Regional University and Scientific Network (RUSNet) of North-Western and Saint-Petersburg Area of Russia).

Is that what I'm seeing when I go to "bgplay.routeviews.org/bgplay", put in prefix 72.234.0.0/15 and select the dates:

22/9/2008  9:00:00   and   22/9/2008  15:00:00

If so, am I understanding it correctly if I say ASN 3267 saw a shorter path from ASN 8997, so refused the proper announcement from ASN 36149 (me) it normally hears from ASN 174 (Cogent).

I cannot confirm that from the monitoring program at AS 16517 :

[EMAIL PROTECTED] mcast]$ grep 72.234.0.0 bgp.full.Sep_2*2008
bgp.full.Sep_21_00:07:00_EDT_2008:*> 72.234.0.0/15 38.101.161.116 3990 0 174 209 36149 ? bgp.full.Sep_21_06:07:00_EDT_2008:*> 72.234.0.0/15 38.101.161.116 3990 0 174 209 36149 ? bgp.full.Sep_21_12:07:00_EDT_2008:*> 72.234.0.0/15 38.101.161.116 3990 0 174 209 36149 ? bgp.full.Sep_21_18:07:00_EDT_2008:*> 72.234.0.0/15 38.101.161.116 3990 0 174 209 36149 ? bgp.full.Sep_22_00:07:00_EDT_2008:*> 72.234.0.0/15 38.101.161.116 3990 0 174 209 36149 ? bgp.full.Sep_22_06:07:00_EDT_2008:*> 72.234.0.0/15 38.101.161.116 3990 0 174 209 36149 ? bgp.full.Sep_22_12:07:00_EDT_2008:*> 72.234.0.0/15 38.101.161.116 3990 0 174 209 36149 ? bgp.full.Sep_22_18:07:00_EDT_2008:*> 72.234.0.0/15 38.101.161.116 3990 0 174 209 36149 ? bgp.full.Sep_23_00:07:00_EDT_2008:*> 72.234.0.0/15 38.101.161.116 3990 0 174 209 36149 ? bgp.full.Sep_23_06:07:00_EDT_2008:*> 72.234.0.0/15 38.101.161.116 3990 0 174 209 36149 ?

You didn't specify the time zone you are in, so I looked at +- 1 day around it. If the hijack lasted 6 hours, we
should have seen it.

Regards
Marshall




If the above two are correct, would it be correct to say only the downstream customers of ASN 3267 were affected?

scott



Reply via email to