|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org To: nanog@nanog.org From: Max Tulyev <maxtul@netassist.ua> Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 13:29:28 +0300 In-Reply-To: <D6A071C3-56FD-4EE5-913A-CCFC58085E1F@puck.nether.net> Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org I'm right here at RIPE 72 now, so I saw it of course ;) The problem is not peering itself, but more general problem of filtering nets, and it was told in the presentation. On 24.05.16 13:19, Jared Mauch wrote: > >> On May 24, 2016, at 6:11 AM, Max Tulyev <maxtul@netassist.ua> wrote: >> >> If you dig into hijacking topic more, you will see that hijacks through >> Tier1 is same or even more popular than through IXes. > > You may not have a view into that you’re being hijacked and used to send > SPAM for example: > > https://ripe72.ripe.net/presentations/45-Invisible_Hijacking.pdf > > Their space was hijacked and announced facing Yahoo. I’m hoping that > Yahoo is now feeding public route views services as a method to help > with detection. Same goes for Microsoft and Google and other e-mail > providers. Some sunlight here would help avoid similar localized hijacks. > >> And if someone want to make me a transit offer for the price of DE-CIX >> (I do not even ask the price of DTEL-IX peering ;) ) - please, contact >> me off-list, I will be really happy. > > Pricing obviously varies based on location and a few other criteria, but > you should be shopping if this is a major part of your business. > > - Jared >
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |