This was a test using unassigned IP block, unless I'm reading it wrong. If a noc alerted on this it should have still be a low priority issue. I don't see any issues with the way this was carried out at all. -jim ------Original Message------ From: Michienne Dixon To: NANOG list Subject: RE: Anyone notice strange announcements for 174.128.31.0/24 Sent: Jan 12, 2009 6:55 PM But isn't this method kind of related to how an network from the Mediterranean/Mid-east went about blocking what they felt was undesirable/offensive content from entering their network? - Michienne Dixon Network Administrator liNKCity 312 Armour Rd. North Kansas City, MO 64116 www.linkcity.org (816) 412-7990 -----Original Message----- From: Randy Bush [mailto:randy@psg.com] Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009 4:47 PM To: Paul Stewart Cc: NANOG list Subject: Re: Anyone notice strange announcements for 174.128.31.0/24 On 09.01.13 07:42, Paul Stewart wrote:
For us, it was annoying - we look for prefix hijackings or what appear
to be.
i think herein lies the rub. it is not prefix hijacking and in no way should it appear that way to you. i suggest tuning your detectors. i am told that path poisoning is used (futilely, we hope to show) in day to day ops by folk to try to avert dos attacks. randy Sent from my BlackBerry device on the Rogers Wireless Network