[184201] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Prefix hijacking by AS20115
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Rampley Jr, Jim F)
Tue Sep 29 11:26:07 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: "Rampley Jr, Jim F" <jim.rampley@charter.com>
To: Seth Mattinen <sethm@rollernet.us>, "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 10:18:54 -0500
In-Reply-To: <560AA4ED.5060200@rollernet.us>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On 9/29/15, 9:49 AM, "Seth Mattinen" <sethm@rollernet.us> wrote:
>On 9/29/15 7:26 AM, Rampley Jr, Jim F wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 9/28/15, 10:24 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Seth Mattinen"
>> <nanog-bounces@nanog.org on behalf of sethm@rollernet.us> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/28/15 20:19, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Is this related to 104.73.161.0/24? That's ours. :-)
>>>>
>>>> We'll take a look and get back to you. Thanks for caring!
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yep, that's one of the affected prefixes.
>>>
>>> ~Seth
>> Hi Seth, which market was this occurring? Was this already removed?
>>I'm
>> not seeing it this morning. I would like to figure out what went wrong
>> here. We shouldn't be nailing up any static configuration to have
>>caused
>> a situation like this.
>>
>
>
>Reno, NV. I do believe they've finally withdrawn this morning (I just
>woke up, it was a long night).
>
>~Seth
This issue was caused by a hung BGP process which was resolved last night.
Nothing nefarious. No static configuration nailed up, no BGP highjacking
purposely done. ;)
