On Dec 1, 2010, at 4:17 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote: > sometimes I love to pull your chain... :) I agree though that folks > won't publish this data (in general) directly, for whatever reason. > Also, right '15% of traffic' really should have been '15% of routes*'
Agreed, I should have been more clear. I wasn't implying that much traffic either, but rather "15% of global prefixes." I was more focused on, "Seems clear enough that traffic *transited* China ASNs, as opposed to being blackholed as we seen in many hijacks. Further, in hopes of generating discussion... I've seen a lot of comments along the lines of "this was likely an accident, misconfiguration, or fat-finger..." I'm having a really hard time figuring how, if traffic not only diverted to China but *transited* China, this could be any kind of mistake. I'm not able to get my fingers or thumbs to randomly (seemingly) select approximately 15% of all prefixes, originate those, modify filters so I can do so, and also somehow divert it to another router that doesn't have the hijacked prefixes I'm announcing but rather forwards the source traffic on to it's intended destination. I can't seem to work all of that out into any kind of "accident." Anyone? -b
