[191391] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: "Defensive" BGP hijacking?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jean-Francois Mezei)
Mon Sep 12 15:35:17 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
From: Jean-Francois Mezei <jfmezei_nanog@vaxination.ca>
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2016 15:35:13 -0400
In-Reply-To: <20160912181402.GB16464@bamboo.slabnet.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On 2016-09-12 14:14, Hugo Slabbert wrote:
> Was this all done at iStop's request and with their full support?
When iStop's router stopped making BGP announcements to the world
(because its last transit link was cut), and ISP3 highjacked the IP
blocks and made BGP announcements pointing to ISP2, I don't think there
was much of iStop left to complain, and it was to the benefit of end
users, so this highjacking was not nefarious.
Either ISP2 was asleep at the switch and let this happen, or perhaps
they had a deal ith iStop that they would not do BGP until block of IPs
was transfered, so they got a friend at ISP3 to do the deed for them.
The transfer of IP to ISP2 happened shortly after that day, after which
ISP2 did the proper BGP announcements for IPs now assigned to it.
