[157759] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Indonesian ISP Moratel announces Google's prefixes
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Andrew Jones)
Tue Nov 6 23:56:02 2012
Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2012 15:55:49 +1100
From: Andrew Jones <aj@jonesy.com.au>
To: <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAAxc0wUioEq_qseQgkH6d3gAQ=+bLOFBjuwtHz6s=aTauBCD2Q@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
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 advertise its routes to Moratel's peers/upstreams,
> then
> Google should've set the correct BGP attributes in the first place.
>
> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 3:35 AM, Anurag Bhatia <me@anuragbhatia.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 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 these issues. Curious to
>> know
>> developments so far.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Anurag Bhatia
>> anuragbhatia.com
>>
>> Linkedin <http://in.linkedin.com/in/anuragbhatia21> |
>> Twitter<https://twitter.com/anurag_bhatia>|
>> Google+ <https://plus.google.com/118280168625121532854>
>>
