On Tue, 16 Mar 2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > People should be worried about stuff like this. Banetele is a > facilities-based network operator in Norway and these guys are directly > attacking their BGP sessions to put them off the air.
Can anyone from Banetele/who knows Banetele confirm this attack took place? Steve > Assuming that they are not sourcing the attacks > in Banetele's AS, then you, the peer of Banetele > are delivering the packet stream that kills the > BGP session. How long before peering agreements > require ACLs in border routers so that only BGP > peering routers can source traffic destined to > your BGP speaking routers? > > (08:48:02) <#sigdie!OseK_> i just collapsed banetele's BGP announcement > (08:48:43) <#sigdie!p> i dunno banetele looks dead > (08:48:48) <#sigdie!p> or maybe im just lagging > (08:49:00) <#sigdie!OseK_> ... BitchX: Sent server ping to > [irc.banetele.no] > (08:49:00) <#sigdie!OseK_> ... Server pong from irc.banetele.no 0.8224 > seconds > (08:49:12) <#sigdie!p> bash-2.05a$ telnetirc.banetele.no 6667 > (08:49:13) <#sigdie!p> Trying 213.239.111.2... > (08:49:16) <#sigdie!OseK_> thats cuz I collapsed their BGP announcement by > > nailing their router head on(08:49:26) <#sigdie!OseK_> but they have a > secondary route to efnet > (08:49:30) <#sigdie!_mre|42o> BGP announcement? > (08:49:31) <#sigdie!OseK_> thru their multihomed connection > (08:49:32) <#sigdie!OseK_> yeah > (08:49:37) <#sigdie!OseK_> they have a collapsable route > (08:49:44) <#sigdie!OseK_> using the border gateway protocl > (08:49:54) <#sigdie!OseK_> hey have to announce to a pool > (08:49:58) <#sigdie!OseK_> in order to establish their route > (08:50:07) <#sigdie!OseK_> but if thye get hit enough their router drops > the > announcements > (08:50:10) <#sigdie!OseK_> and they lose their routes > (08:50:14) <#sigdie!OseK_> its wierd > (08:50:21) <#sigdie!OseK_> i dont quite understand how it works myself > > > > > >