Hey Joe, On 12 Jun 2019, at 12:37, Joe Provo <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 04:10:00PM +0000, David Guo via NANOG wrote: >> Send abuse complaint to the upstreams > > ...and then name & shame publicly. AS-path forgery "for TE" was > never a good idea. Sharing the affected prefix[es]/path[s] would > be good. I realise lots of people dislike AS_PATH stuffing with other peoples' AS numbers and treat it as a form of hijacking. However, there's an argument that AS_PATH is really just a loop-avoidance mechanism, not some kind of AS-granular traceroute for prefix propagation. In that sense, stuffing 9327 into a prefix as a mechanism to stop that prefix being accepted by AS 9327 seems almost reasonable. (I assume this is the kind of TE you are talking about.) What is the principal harm of doing this? Honest question. I'm not advocating for anything, just curious. Joe
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
