On Nov 07, 2012, at 00:21 , Jian Gu <guxiaoj...@gmail.com> wrote: > I don't know what Google and Moratel's peering agreement, but "leak"? > educate me, Google is announcing /24 for all of their 4 NS prefix and > 8.8.8.0/24 for their public DNS server, how did Moratel leak those routes > to Internet?
Downthread, someone said what is typical with peering prefixes, i.e. announce to customers, not to peers or upstreams. How do you think peering works? However, I place most of the blame on PCCW for crappy filtering of their customers. And I'm a little surprised to see nLayer in the path. Shame on them! (Does that have any effect any more? :) Oh, and we are still waiting for an answer: Which attribute do you think Google could have used to stop this? -- TTFN, patrick > On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 9:13 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore <patr...@ianai.net>wrote: > >> On Nov 07, 2012, at 00:07 , Jian Gu <guxiaoj...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Where did you get the idea that a Moratel customer announced a >> google-owned >>> prefix to Moratel and Moratel did not have the proper filters in place? >>> according to the blog, all google's 4 authoritative DNS server networks >> and >>> 8.8.8.0/24 were wrongly routed to Moratel, what's the possiblity for a >>> Moratel customers announce all those prefixes? >> >> Ah, right, they just leaked Google's prefix. I thought a customer >> originated the prefix. >> >> Original question still stands. Which attribute do you expect Google to >> set to stop this? >> >> Hint: Don't say No-Advertise, unless you want peers to only talk to the >> adjacent AS, not their customers or their customers' customers, etc. >> >> Looking forward to your answer. >> >> -- >> TTFN, >> patrick >> >> >>> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 9:02 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore <patr...@ianai.net >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On Nov 06, 2012, at 23:48 , Jian Gu <guxiaoj...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> What do you mean hijack? Google is peering with Moratel, if Google does >>>> not >>>>> want Moratel to advertise its routes to Moratel's peers/upstreams, then >>>>> Google should've set the correct BGP attributes in the first place. >>>> >>>> That doesn't make the slightest bit of sense. >>>> >>>> If a Moratel customer announced a Google-owned prefix to Moratel, and >>>> Moratel did not have the proper filters in place, there is nothing >> Google >>>> could do to stop the hijack from happening. >>>> >>>> Exactly what attribute do you think would stop this? >>>> >>>> -- >>>> TTFN, >>>> patrick >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 3:35 AM, Anurag Bhatia <m...@anuragbhatia.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Another case of route hijack - >>>>>> >>>> >> http://blog.cloudflare.com/why-google-went-offline-today-and-a-bit-about >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I am curious if big networks have any pre-defined filters for big >>>> content >>>>>> providers like Google to avoid these? I am sure internet community >>>> would be >>>>>> working in direction to somehow prevent these issues. Curious to know >>>>>> developments so far. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>>> Anurag Bhatia >>>>>> anuragbhatia.com >>>>>> >>>>>> Linkedin <http://in.linkedin.com/in/anuragbhatia21> | >>>>>> Twitter<https://twitter.com/anurag_bhatia>| >>>>>> Google+ <https://plus.google.com/118280168625121532854> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >> >> >>
