Am 18.11.2015 um 13:08 schrieb William Herrin:
On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 6:51 AM, William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> 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 mis-origination. When you non-maliciously announce P as if you own it (even though you do not) the exact details of how you screwed the
On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 5:06 AM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote: pooch are not externally important. And we have enough obscure names for things as it is. For that matter, just call it a hijack like it is. Don't legitimize originating a prefix you don't own by giving it an innocuous name.
So probably it should be structured like this: _________ leak / hijack ----------------- mis-origination (which should be better described as: I originate P when I don't have the right to) \__________ origin scrubbing (I like that) It's a hijack (the result) in any case. If you want to differentiate between malice and stupidity/ignorance just call it "malicious hijack" opposed to "accidental hijack". And then list the cause (leak, mis-origination, origin scrubbing) Cheers, Mat