Dear Mr. Know-Peering, I came here to learn and I believe I have the right to say what I was thinking, no matter how ignorant my comment was. I don't have the right to blame anybody, in fact I don't give a damn whose fault it is, it is not my business.
I apologize if I offended you when you claimed that it was a hijacking. On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 9:45 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore <patr...@ianai.net>wrote: > On Nov 07, 2012, at 00:35 , Jian Gu <guxiaoj...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hmm, look at this screen shot from the blog, 8.8.8.0/24 was orignated > from > > Google. > > Everyone who posted in this thread was well aware of that. (Well, except > me in my first post. :) Google was still the victim, and it was still not > their fault. > > You are showing wide and clear ignorance on the basics of peering. Which > is fine, the vast majority of the planet hasn't a clue what peering is. > However, the rest of the people who do not know what they are talking > about have managed to avoid commenting on the subject to 10K+ of their > not-so-closest friends. > > To be clear, if you had started with something like: "Why is Google > originating the route? Doesn't that make it valid?", you would have gotten > a lot of help & support. But instead you started by claiming it was > Google's fault and they could stop this by setting "the correct BGP > attributes". I note you still haven't told us what those attributes would > be despite repeated questions. > > Perhaps it's time to admit you don't know what attributes, and you need a > little more education on peering in general? > > When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. > > -- > TTFN, > patrick > > > > tom@edge01.sfo01> show route 8.8.8.8 > > > > inet.0: 422196 destinations, 422196 routes (422182 active, 0 holddown, > > 14 hidden) > > + = Active Route, - = Last Active, * = Both > > 8.8.8.0/24 *[BGP/170] 00:27:02, MED 18, localpref 100 > > AS path: 4436 3491 23947 15169 I > >> to 69.22.153.1 via ge-1/0/9.0 > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 9:33 PM, Hank Nussbacher <h...@efes.iucc.ac.il > >wrote: > > > >> At 21:21 06/11/2012 -0800, Jian Gu wrote: > >> > >> If Google announces 8.8.8.0/24 to you and you in turn start announcing > to > >> the Internet 8.8.8.0/24 as originating from you, then a certain section > >> of the Internet will believe your announcement over Google's. This > has > >> happened many times before due to improper filters, but this is the > first > >> time I have seen the victim being blamed. Interesting concept. > >> > >> -Hank > >> > >> 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? > >>> > >>> 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< > 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< > http://in.linkedin.com/in/anuragbhatia21>> > >>> | > >>>>>>>> Twitter<https://twitter.com/**anurag_bhatia< > https://twitter.com/anurag_bhatia> > >>>> | > >>>>>>>> Google+ <https://plus.google.com/**118280168625121532854< > https://plus.google.com/118280168625121532854> > >>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > >> > > >
