finding the
>> one-sided mistake hard to believe. Either that or the folks at AS20922
>> haven't figured out that an open bgp peer isn't a great idea! :)
>>
>> Scott
>> -Original Message-----
>> From: Joel Jaeggli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sund
x27;t figured out that an open bgp peer isn't a great idea! :)
Scott
-Original Message-
From: Joel Jaeggli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2008 1:36 PM
To: Marshall Eubanks
Cc: NANOG list
Subject: Re: AS 54271
those prefixes all have ripe route object with origin
e. Either that or the folks at AS20922
haven't figured out that an open bgp peer isn't a great idea! :)
Scott
-Original Message-
From: Joel Jaeggli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2008 1:36 PM
To: Marshall Eubanks
Cc: NANOG list
Subject: Re: AS 54271
tho
This ip space is from Bahrain 89.148.0.0/19 but some how has ended up in
Hungary from an unknown owner. Definitely looks suspicious in my book.
Manolo
Joel Jaeggli wrote:
those prefixes all have ripe route object with origin AS 20922
all the routes I see for a given prefix look like the f
those prefixes all have ripe route object with origin AS 20922
all the routes I see for a given prefix look like the following:
2914 1299 12301 8696 20922 54271
129.250.0.171 from 129.250.0.171 (129.250.0.12)
Origin IGP, metric 1, localpref 100, valid, external
Community: 2914:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Marshall Eubanks wrote:
> As of this morning, I am seeing BGP from AS 54271
>
> *> 62.77.196.0/22 38.101.161.1166991 0 174 3549
> 3549 3549 12301 8696 20922 54271 i
I would be willing to bet that the IP netblocks being advertise
Patrick W. Gilmore schrieb:
On Jul 13, 2008, at 1:01 PM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
As of this morning, I am seeing BGP from AS 54271
Maybe someone mistyped "65271"? Which is still bad, but not at bad
(IMHO).
Interestingly, AS54271 is the last # of an unassigned block:
46080-47103Assigne
On Jul 13, 2008, at 1:01 PM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
As of this morning, I am seeing BGP from AS 54271
Maybe someone mistyped "65271"? Which is still bad, but not at bad
(IMHO).
--
TTFN,
patrick
*> 62.77.196.0/22 38.101.161.1166991 0 174
3549 3549 3549 12301 869
8 matches
Mail list logo