OK one quick question here - Moratel leaked route and thus for a portion of
internet route to Google was via Moratel but was a path. What caused 100%
outage I.e all four authoritative DNS servers and open resolver service too
? Can we just guess that due to ultra high traffic path between Moratel
On 11/7/2012 5:05 AM, Anurag Bhatia wrote:
OK one quick question here - Moratel leaked route and thus for a portion of
internet route to Google was via Moratel but was a path. What caused 100%
outage I.e all four authoritative DNS servers and open resolver service too
? Can we just guess that
As for the, ``what is a leak'' question, a few of us just put a draft together
to describe it, in the IETF:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-foo-sidr-simple-leak-attack-bgpsec-no-help-02
Eric
On Nov 7, 2012, at 12:21 AM, Jian Gu wrote:
I don't know what Google and Moratel's
http://bgplay.routeviews.org/bgplay/
gives a good idea of what happened
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Eric Osterweil eosterw...@verisign.comwrote:
As for the, ``what is a leak'' question, a few of us just put a draft
together to describe it, in the IETF:
Another case of route hijack -
http://blog.cloudflare.com/why-google-went-offline-today-and-a-bit-about
I am curious if big networks have any pre-defined filters for big content
providers like Google to avoid these? I am sure internet community would be
working in direction to somehow prevent
On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 11:48 PM, Jian Gu guxiaoj...@gmail.com wrote:
What do you mean hijack? Google is peering with Moratel, if Google does not
want Moratel to advertise its routes to Moratel's peers/upstreams, then
Google should've set the correct BGP attributes in the first place.
curios
It's widely accepted that you only advertise your peers' routes to
customers, and you only advertise your own, and your customers' routes
to your upstreams.
On 07.11.2012 15:48, Jian Gu wrote:
What do you mean hijack? Google is peering with Moratel, if Google
does not
want Moratel to
By reading cloudflare blog, cloudflare network engineer discovered that
Google's authoritative DNS server networks (including Google's public DNS
8.8.8.0/24) were being routed to Indonesia according their cloudflare's SF
office edge router, this is werid unless cloudflare is doing something
crazy
On Nov 06, 2012, at 23:48 , Jian Gu guxiaoj...@gmail.com wrote:
What do you mean hijack? Google is peering with Moratel, if Google does not
want Moratel to advertise its routes to Moratel's peers/upstreams, then
Google should've set the correct BGP attributes in the first place.
That doesn't
Where did you get the idea that a Moratel customer announced a google-owned
prefix to Moratel and Moratel did not have the proper filters in place?
according to the blog, all google's 4 authoritative DNS server networks and
8.8.8.0/24 were wrongly routed to Moratel, what's the possiblity for a
Nobody said a Moratel customer announced a Google prefix, they said the
issue was within Moratel.
This is a really good article that explains the issue in detail, maybe read
it again?
http://blog.cloudflare.com/why-google-went-offline-today-and-a-bit-about
Steve
On 7 November 2012 05:07, Jian
On Nov 07, 2012, at 00:07 , Jian Gu guxiaoj...@gmail.com wrote:
Where did you get the idea that a Moratel customer announced a google-owned
prefix to Moratel and Moratel did not have the proper filters in place?
according to the blog, all google's 4 authoritative DNS server networks and
I don't know what Google and Moratel's peering agreement, but leak?
educate me, Google is announcing /24 for all of their 4 NS prefix and
8.8.8.0/24 for their public DNS server, how did Moratel leak those routes
to Internet?
On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 9:13 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore
On Nov 07, 2012, at 00:21 , Jian Gu guxiaoj...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't know what Google and Moratel's peering agreement, but leak?
educate me, Google is announcing /24 for all of their 4 NS prefix and
8.8.8.0/24 for their public DNS server, how did Moratel leak those routes
to Internet?
At 20:48 06/11/2012 -0800, Jian Gu wrote:
Ahhh...blame the victim. Google - shame on you.
-Hank
What do you mean hijack? Google is peering with Moratel, if Google does not
want Moratel to advertise its routes to Moratel's peers/upstreams, then
Google should've set the correct BGP attributes
At 21:21 06/11/2012 -0800, Jian Gu wrote:
If Google announces 8.8.8.0/24 to you and you in turn start announcing to
the Internet 8.8.8.0/24 as originating from you, then a certain section of
the Internet will believe your announcement over Google's.This has
happened many times before due
On Nov 07, 2012, at 00:35 , Jian Gu guxiaoj...@gmail.com wrote:
Hmm, look at this screen shot from the blog, 8.8.8.0/24 was orignated from
Google.
Everyone who posted in this thread was well aware of that. (Well, except me in
my first post. :) Google was still the victim, and it was still
On 11/7/12 12:13 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Nov 07, 2012, at 00:07 , Jian Gu guxiaoj...@gmail.com wrote:
Where did you get the idea that a Moratel customer announced a google-owned
prefix to Moratel and Moratel did not have the proper filters in place?
according to the blog, all google's
It looks like nLayer have routes learned through Moratel which have
local-pref set to anywhere up to 250 (learned from private peers), while
the routes learned from direct peering relationships to Google on public
peering have a local-pref of 200. This explains why the routes from
Moratel
Apologize for calling it an prefix hijack. I misunderstood in start.
Clearly it was case of prefix leaking.
Thanks
(Sent from my mobile device)
Anurag Bhatia
http://anuragbhatia.com
On Nov 7, 2012 11:22 AM, joel jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote:
On 11/7/12 12:13 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
Dear Mr. Know-Peering,
I came here to learn and I believe I have the right to say what I was
thinking, no matter how ignorant my comment was. I don't have the right to
blame anybody, in fact I don't give a damn whose fault it is, it is not my
business.
I apologize if I offended you when you
21 matches
Mail list logo
