[157761] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Indonesian ISP Moratel announces Google's prefixes
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Patrick W. Gilmore)
Wed Nov 7 00:02:32 2012
From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAAxc0wUioEq_qseQgkH6d3gAQ=+bLOFBjuwtHz6s=aTauBCD2Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2012 00:02:19 -0500
To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Nov 06, 2012, at 23:48 , Jian Gu <guxiaojian@gmail.com> 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.
That doesn't make the slightest bit of sense.
If a Moratel customer announced a Google-owned prefix to Moratel, and =
Moratel did not have the proper filters in place, there is nothing =
Google could do to stop the hijack from happening.
Exactly what attribute do you think would stop this?
--=20
TTFN,
patrick
> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 3:35 AM, Anurag Bhatia <me@anuragbhatia.com> =
wrote:
>=20
>> Another case of route hijack -
>> =
http://blog.cloudflare.com/why-google-went-offline-today-and-a-bit-about
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> 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.
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> Thanks.
>>=20
>>=20
>> --
>>=20
>> Anurag Bhatia
>> anuragbhatia.com
>>=20
>> Linkedin <http://in.linkedin.com/in/anuragbhatia21> |
>> Twitter<https://twitter.com/anurag_bhatia>|
>> Google+ <https://plus.google.com/118280168625121532854>
>>=20
>=20
