Apologize for calling it an prefix hijack. I misunderstood in start. Clearly it was case of prefix leaking.
Thanks (Sent from my mobile device) Anurag Bhatia http://anuragbhatia.com On Nov 7, 2012 11:22 AM, "joel jaeggli" <joe...@bogus.com> wrote: > On 11/7/12 12:13 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore 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. >> > > I would expect that moratel should have a route object which their transit > providers can construct a prefix filter for. if moratel advertised an AS > path including themselves and a google orgin pccw should not have accepted > it. if they originated the prefix, pccw should not have accepted it. > > >
