On 9/29/15 7:26 AM, Rampley Jr, Jim F wrote:
On 9/28/15, 10:24 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Seth Mattinen" <nanog-bounces@nanog.org on behalf of sethm@rollernet.us> wrote:
On 9/28/15 20:19, Martin Hannigan wrote:
Is this related to 104.73.161.0/24? That's ours. :-)
We'll take a look and get back to you. Thanks for caring!
Yep, that's one of the affected prefixes.
~Seth Hi Seth, which market was this occurring? Was this already removed? I'm not seeing it this morning. I would like to figure out what went wrong here. We shouldn't be nailing up any static configuration to have caused a situation like this.
Reno, NV. I do believe they've finally withdrawn this morning (I just woke up, it was a long night).
~Seth This issue was caused by a hung BGP process which was resolved last night. Nothing nefarious. No static configuration nailed up, no BGP highjacking
On 9/29/15, 9:49 AM, "Seth Mattinen" <sethm@rollernet.us> wrote: purposely done. ;)