[148834] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Why not to use RPKI (Was Re: Argus: a hijacking alarm system)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Yang Xiang)
Mon Jan 23 22:45:16 2012
In-Reply-To: <4F1DB006.4080208@network-services.uoregon.edu>
From: Yang Xiang <xiangy08@csnet1.cs.tsinghua.edu.cn>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 11:43:23 +0800
To: kemp@network-services.uoregon.edu
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
2012/1/24 John Kemp <kemp@network-services.uoregon.edu>
>
>
> Minor correction there. If you are talking about our IX collectors
> (LINX, PAIX,
> EQIX Ashburn, SYDNEY, etc.) those are at exchanges and peering
> directly. The
> collectors at Univ of Oregon (rv,rv2,rv3,rv4, rv6), yeah, those are
> multi-hop.
> Doesn't detract from your point, but I think it helps if people are
> aware of whether
> they are on the exchange or on a multihop when using routeviews collectors.
>
We talk about routeservers, not collectors.
Argus doesn't use routeservers in RouteViews to identify hijacking.
>
> Only other thing to add, I don't think anyone mentioned Cyclops in this
> thread.
> Just as another data point, see also: http://cyclops.6watch.net or
> http://cyclops.cs.ucla.edu
>
> John Kemp (kemp@routeviews.org)
>
>
--
_________________________________________
Yang Xiang. Ph.D candidate. Tsinghua University
Argus: argus.csnet1.cs.tsinghua.edu.cn
