On 9/29/15, 9:49 AM, "Seth Mattinen" <se...@rollernet.us> wrote:
>On 9/29/15 7:26 AM, Rampley Jr, Jim F wrote: >> >> >> On 9/28/15, 10:24 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Seth Mattinen" >> <nanog-boun...@nanog.org on behalf of se...@rollernet.us> wrote: >> >>> On 9/28/15 20:19, Martin Hannigan wrote: >>>> >>>> Is this related to 104.73.161.0/24? That's ours. :-) >>>> >>>> We'll take a look and get back to you. Thanks for caring! >>>> >>> >>> >>> Yep, that's one of the affected prefixes. >>> >>> ~Seth >> Hi Seth, which market was this occurring? Was this already removed? >>I'm >> not seeing it this morning. I would like to figure out what went wrong >> here. We shouldn't be nailing up any static configuration to have >>caused >> a situation like this. >> > > >Reno, NV. I do believe they've finally withdrawn this morning (I just >woke up, it was a long night). > >~Seth This issue was caused by a hung BGP process which was resolved last night. Nothing nefarious. No static configuration nailed up, no BGP highjacking purposely done. ;)
