[185946] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: bad announcement taxonomy
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Aris Lambrianidis)
Thu Nov 19 09:28:49 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2015 12:36:55 +0200
From: Aris Lambrianidis <effulgence@gmail.com>
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
In-Reply-To: <m2bnar62qe.wl%randy@psg.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Randy Bush wrote:
> some friends and i were talking about recent routing cfs, and found we
> needed a clearer taxonomy. i throw this out.
>
> leak - i receive P and send it on to folk to whom i should not send
> it for business reasons (transit, peer, ...)
>
> mis-origination - i originate P when i do not own it
>
> hijack - an intentional mis-origination
>
> 7007 - i receive P (or some sub/superset), process it in some way
> (likely through my igp), and re-originate it, or part of it,
> as my own
>
> we need a name for 7007 other then vinnie
So 7007 (laundering) might be (or not) a subset of a hijack which is a
subset of mis-origination.
What's the tree for a leak? I think a more structured approach is
necessary if we are to delve on
both technical definitions and intent.
--Aris
