In message
Siyuan Miao wrote:
>It's a quite simple issue and it's absolutely irrelevant to any historical
>or political reasons.
Who said anything about politics?
I merely offered the observation, in my own rather backhanded way, that
Lithuania is not exactly geographically close to either
Hi,
On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 04:15:39PM +0800, Siyuan Miao wrote:
> It's a quite simple issue and it's absolutely irrelevant to any historical
> or political reasons.
>
> Someone from AS56630 forgot to enable remove-private-as for eBGP peers.
And someone from their upstreams forgot to install
Hi Ronald,
It's a quite simple issue and it's absolutely irrelevant to any historical
or political reasons.
Someone from AS56630 forgot to enable remove-private-as for eBGP peers.
Regards,
Siyuan Miao
On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 4:06 PM Ronald F. Guilmette
wrote:
>
> In message ,
>
In message ,
=?ISO-8859-15?Q?Carlos_Fria=E7as?= wrote:
>> P.S. I'm not entirely sure that I understand why a Lithuanian ASN (AS56630)
>> would be called upon to provide routing for an alleged telecom company locat
>ed
>> in Tbilisi, Georgia (i.e. GE-RAILWAYTELECOM-20120605).
>
>It's only
Hi Ronald, All,
On Sun, 14 Apr 2019, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
(...)
It would appear that the mysterious AS65000 has been sort of shadowing
the movements of AS56630 for some time now... over six months, I guess,
at least since 2018-08-17, according to the RIPE data on that last route
shown
On Sun, 14 Apr 2019, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
(...)
I will save all further comment until someone offers me some kind of an
explanation of this apparently strange stuff. For now, I will only add
that whereas bgp.he.net is showing there as being a total of 66 IPv4
prefixes announced by this
In message ,
Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
>Given that it is RFG raising this, I think it is a pretty safe bet that this
>ASN is associated with some abusive activity that he has seen.
Well, let's just say that some things that are relavant to AS65000 do
appear to be to be a bit, um,
Let us put it this way. There might be several simultaneous leaks of this same
private asn because multiple country netblocks are being announced. Or this is
actually malicious.
I have no way to tell without checking what abuse is coming from there. I'm
sure RFG is researching that part of
On 15/04/19, 9:26 AM, "anti-abuse-wg on behalf of ac"
wrote:
>Sorry for top posting, but I fail to see how any of this is abuse related?
Given that it is RFG raising this, I think it is a pretty safe bet that this
ASN is associated with some abusive activity that he has seen.
Sorry for top posting, but I fail to see how any of this is abuse related?
On Mon, 15 Apr 2019 04:39:10 +0100
"Sascha Luck [ml]" wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 14, 2019 at 06:30:50PM -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
> >Even if I accept that one of these explanation is accurate and
> >correct, I am
On Sun, Apr 14, 2019 at 06:30:50PM -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
Even if I accept that one of these explanation is accurate and correct,
I am still left with one question: Who is "they" in this context?
If it's a leaked internal private ASN, the next ASN upstream in
the path should be the
In message ,
Richard Clayton wrote:
>Hurricane Electric is seeing announcements from other ASs some of which
>have AS65000 declared to be origin of the prefix
I understand. The announcements are, in effect, mislabled.
>Best practice is to remove internal use AS's from announcements -- not
In message <5c95b9d5-58b4-4a86-8052-e928f1d8a...@incibe.es>,
=?utf-8?B?w4FuZ2VsIEdvbnrDoWxleiBCZXJkYXNjbw==?=
wrote:
>Well, someone is announcing those prefixes as linked to AS65000...
Yes.
Who?
In message <20190415010759.ga51...@cilantro.c4inet.net>,
"Sascha Luck [ml]" wrote:
>Most likely this is either used in error as an advertising ASN by
>someone who doesn't know what they are doing (like the RFC1918
>space that crops up in the DFZ now and again) or it's used
>internally in
In message <44806.1555289...@segfault.tristatelogic.com>, Ronald F.
Guilmette writes
>Here is what I am hoping some actual expert can explain to me:
>
>https://bgp.he.net/AS65000#_asinfo
>https://bgp.he.net/AS65000#_prefixes
>https://bgp.he.net/AS65000#_prefixes6
Well, someone is announcing those prefixes as linked to AS65000. If he itself
was using AS65000 internally with those prefixes, and that leaked to their
public interface, it would be a false positive, but lacking some agreement
between the receiver and their peer involving AS65000, imho those
Apologies for following up on myself, but I did just ant to mention
that in addition to the very limited "snapshots" of thw routes being
announced by AS65000 that can be obtained from bgp.he.net, I am
also looking at this page:
https://stat.ripe.net/AS65000#tabId=routing
which shows that in
On Sun, Apr 14, 2019 at 05:43:55PM -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
https://bgp.he.net/AS65000#_asinfo
https://bgp.he.net/AS65000#_prefixes
https://bgp.he.net/AS65000#_prefixes6
https://bgp.he.net/AS65000#_peers
https://bgp.he.net/AS65000#_peers6
The only other thing I feel compelled to say,
As I believe I have made abundantly clear, I am in favor of the proposal
2019-03, and more generally, I am supportive of the notion that order
is preferable to chaos, particularly when it comes to routing on the
Internet. The reasons for this preference of mine are so manifest that
they do not
19 matches
Mail list logo
