On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Job Snijders <j...@instituut.net> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 11:53:15AM -0400, Christopher Morrow wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Job Snijders <j...@instituut.net> wrote: >> >> > What is the real damage of hijacking a prefix which is not in use? >> >> 'not in use' ... where? >> >> What if the 'owner' of the block has the block only routed >> 'internally' (either behind gateways/firewalls/airgaps or just inside >> their ASN) The expectation of the 'owner' is that they are using the >> space and it's not routed 'somewhere else', right? > > Interesting point. A commmon approach is to announce such internal > prefixes and blackhole packets to and from at a border.
there are lots of belts/suspenders ways to fix this, yes. > Alternatively they could set "AS 0" in the ROA of such 'not globally > used' prefixes. I don't think loose mode should apply to 'AS 0' ROAs. ok
