On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 12:58:46PM +0200, Jérôme Nicolle wrote:
> From your initial list, I can still see some prefixes with the NLnog ring :
>
> http://lg.ring.nlnog.net/prefix_detail/lg01/ipv4?q=206.41.128.0
> http://lg.ring.nlnog.net/prefix_detail/lg01/ipv4?q=52.128.192.0
>
Hi Ronald,
>From your initial list, I can still see some prefixes with the NLnog ring :
http://lg.ring.nlnog.net/prefix_detail/lg01/ipv4?q=206.41.128.0
http://lg.ring.nlnog.net/prefix_detail/lg01/ipv4?q=52.128.192.0
http://lg.ring.nlnog.net/prefix_bgpmap/lg01/ipv4?q=206.222.128.0
Also
> But this is a rather entirely different case. In this case, it seems that
> one very notable peering that -did- in fact exist, between AS205869 and
> AS6939, was not reported at all on the bgp.he.net page linked to above.
HE usually learn these hijacked routes from IX peering and route
radar.qrator.net serves as a complementary view to bgp.he.net and AS205869
does show as peered with AS6939 there.
Jason
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 3:02 PM Ronald F. Guilmette
wrote:
>
> In message <20180724.090316.47077931.sth...@nethelp.no>,
> sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
>
> >All prefixes still
In message <20180724.090316.47077931.sth...@nethelp.no>,
sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
>All prefixes still visible here (Oslo, Norway), through HE. Here's your
>original table augmented with the AS paths I see on our border routers:
>
>ASN RouteAS path
>> Dead for me via:
>> HE
>> NTT
>> COX
>
> Likewise here, via a bunch of other transits. I saw them from HE this morning
> but they appear to have been withdrawn now.
Also gone from HE from my vantage point in Oslo, Norway.
Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sth...@nethelp.no
> Dead for me via:
> HE
> NTT
> COX
Likewise here, via a bunch of other transits. I saw them from HE this morning
but they appear to have been withdrawn now.
Dead for me via:
HE
NTT
COX
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 3:03 AM, wrote:
> > I'd greatly appreciate it if readers of this post would help me to to
> confirm
> > that the non-routing of the above block is both universal and complete...
> > as it is, at least, from where I am sitting... but at this
> I'd greatly appreciate it if readers of this post would help me to to confirm
> that the non-routing of the above block is both universal and complete...
> as it is, at least, from where I am sitting... but at this point I have
> nothing and nobody to rail against. (Or so I thought! But while
Before I get into talking about this month's honorary Hijacker of
the Month, I really must start by thanking everyone who pitched in and
helped to insure an appropriate response and outcome for the BitCanal
case, which I reported here last month. You all know who you are, and
I won't explicitly
10 matches
Mail list logo
