[143894] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Prefix hijacking by Michael Lindsay via Internap
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Erik Bais)
Sun Aug 21 04:28:30 2011
From: "Erik Bais" <ebais@a2b-internet.com>
To: "'Denis Spirin'" <noc@link-telecom.net>,
<nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAL+GGzE_Vi7nc3ye_Km+U+WZheMaihybtvZLa_89YydrvikQ7w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2011 10:27:36 +0200
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Hi Denis,
Convenient as it may be to use a LIR and their historic provided prefixes,
have you thought about starting with a clean slate ?
If the company was close to bankrupt and one can only assume that it didn't
require a couple /16's and a couple /19's ...
Didn't you get ANY questions from RIPE in that regard when you discussed the
topic with them ? The reason why those prefixes where provided isn't valid
anymore and if you are restarting the business even a /21 should be enough
...
Even in Russia a will take some time to get the customers back, especially
if they have been offline for some time. (If they where not offline, the
prefixes wouldn't have been hijacked correct ? ... )
Next to this all, none of the prefixes that I currently see under the stated
AS have a route-object in the RIPE db and the AS object AS31733 isn't
updated since 2008, as none of the listed AS's there are current / active
upstreams / peers.
From where I stand it doesn't surprise me that your upstreams don't want to
advertize it and if they would, don't be surprised if some networks filter
your prefixes regardless if you are listed on a shady list on Spamhaus.
Regards,
Erik Bais
