in case some people want to look at routeviews data for themselves,
I have archived a couple of pdf file at:
http://bgpinspect.merit.edu/reports.php
-manish
-
Re: oof. panix sidelined by incompetence... again.
* From: william(at)elan.net
* Date: Sun Jan 22 13:34:47 2006
Can
message --
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 11:25:58 -0500 (EST)
From: Manish Karir [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: NANOG nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: oof. panix sidelined by incompetence... again.
in case some people want to look at routeviews data for themselves,
I have archived a couple of pdf file
You can easily repeat the queries on the bgpinspect website to generate
the same results in html files. I just bundled them up into a
single pdf for convenience.
thanks
manish
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006, Fergie wrote:
Out of curiousity, why must these be in .pdf format?
I mean, what's wrong
This is hardly as serious as the last incident -- but, well, some people
do seem to have all the luck, eh?
Of course, there are measures one can take against this sort of thing; but
it's hard to deploy some of them effectively when the party stealing your
routes was in fact once authorized to
Can there be a confirmation of this? I see no such MOTD at
http://www.panix.com/panix/help/Announcements/
and my connection to panix is fine and route I see is 166.84.0.0/17
with origin in 2033. I also checked at routeviews.org and similarly
all their peers see origin in in 2033. Is there some
On Sun, Jan 22, 2006 at 10:33:04AM -0800, william(at)elan.net wrote:
Can there be a confirmation of this? I see no such MOTD at
http://www.panix.com/panix/help/Announcements/
Verio was just extremely helpful and filtered out the bogus Panix
routes ConED was sending them quite rapidly upon
On Sun, Jan 22, 2006 at 10:33:04AM -0800, william(at)elan.net wrote:
Can there be a confirmation of this? I see no such MOTD at
http://www.panix.com/panix/help/Announcements/
I don't know how realtime that is ... but Panix (including their web
site) was unreachable from several points
Folx,
On Sun, Jan 22, 2006 at 06:09:08PM +, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
This is hardly as serious as the last incident -- but, well, some people
do seem to have all the luck, eh?
From where I'm standing this situation looks much more serious than
the last one. It looks like Con Edison
As of the now (according to Panix; I haven't independantly verified
it), Verio is (at Panix's request) rejecting the route from ConEd, and
Panix's upstreams are accepting the /17s, so connectivity should be
OK from everywhere except possibly ConEd.
are the following two statements true?
o
