> On Nov 20, 2015, at 07:07 , t...@pelican.org wrote:
>
> On Friday, 20 November, 2015 14:05, "Jared Mauch"
> said:
>
>> Did someone say NAT?
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v26BAlfWBm8
>
> Now *that's* how to make my Friday afternoon! You, sir, win the Internet for
> today.
>
> Reg
On Friday, 20 November, 2015 14:05, "Jared Mauch" said:
> Did someone say NAT?
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v26BAlfWBm8
Now *that's* how to make my Friday afternoon! You, sir, win the Internet for
today.
Regards,
Tim.
ck
> Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2015 12:44 PM
> To: valdis.kletni...@vt.edu
> Cc: North American Network Operators' Group
> Subject: Re: bad announcement taxonomy
>
> Origin NAT? ;)
>
> Ken
>
>> On Nov 18, 2015, at 11:15 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
>
Don't get on Kens bad side.
-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Ken Matlock
Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2015 12:44 PM
To: valdis.kletni...@vt.edu
Cc: North American Network Operators' Group
Subject: Re: bad announcement taxonomy
> Well, if you take a route, change its origin as your own (or any
> other) and re-announce it (perhaps just a smaller prefix of it) I
> would assume some intent.
>
> Or they are super whoopsies.
the original 7007, telkom malasia, ... were super whoopsies. the
classic of redistributing bgp into
On Thu, 19 Nov 2015 15:24:09 -0800, Arturo Servin said:
> Well, if you take a route, change its origin as your own (or any other) and
> re-announce it (perhaps just a smaller prefix of it) I would assume some
> intent.
>
> Or they are super whoopsies.
AS7007 was a whoopsie. And in fact, I'll go
On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 10:15 PM, wrote:
> > How about Origin Obfuscation
>
> Obfuscation implies intent. Most leaks and mis-announcements don't
> have intent because they're whoopsies.
>
Well, if you take a route, change its origin as your own (or any other) and
re-announce it (perhaps just a
Origin NAT? ;)
Ken
> On Nov 18, 2015, at 11:15 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
>
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 18:21:32 -0600, David Edelman said:
>> How about Origin Obfuscation
>
> Obfuscation implies intent. Most leaks and mis-announcements don't
> have intent because they're whoopsies.
> So 7007 (laundering) might be (or not) a subset of a hijack which is a
> subset of mis-origination.
> What's the tree for a leak? I think a more structured approach is
> necessary if we are to delve on
> both technical definitions and intent.
you can make it as complex as you want. and you're n
Randy Bush wrote:
> some friends and i were talking about recent routing cfs, and found we
> needed a clearer taxonomy. i throw this out.
>
> leak - i receive P and send it on to folk to whom i should not send
>it for business reasons (transit, peer, ...)
>
> mis-origination - i originat
On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 18:21:32 -0600, David Edelman said:
> How about Origin Obfuscation
Obfuscation implies intent. Most leaks and mis-announcements don't
have intent because they're whoopsies.
pgpjuzzo1qQew.pgp
Description: PGP signature
How about Origin Obfuscation
--Dave
Dave Edelman
> On Nov 18, 2015, at 16:51, Joe Abley wrote:
>
>
>
>> On 18 Nov 2015, at 15:55, Arturo Servin wrote:
>>
>> Laundered route
>
> The routes in question are not just being laundered, they're being bleached.
>
>
> Joe
On 18 Nov 2015, at 15:55, Arturo Servin wrote:
> Laundered route
The routes in question are not just being laundered, they're being bleached.
Joe
Laundered route
I like it.
Or re-originated laundered route (it has more meaning but a bit too long)
.as
On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 at 09:33 Casey Russell wrote:
> I think Tony's on the right track here. I vote we call this "Route
> Laundering", the people who do it "Route Launderers", and the rout
I think Tony's on the right track here. I vote we call this "Route
Laundering", the people who do it "Route Launderers", and the routes
themselves "Laundered Routes".
I actually had a little trouble spelling the different forms of
laundering. So I looked them up..
"I can't believe what a b
> On Nov 18, 2015, at 9:45 AM, Roland Dobbins wrote:
>
>> On 18 Nov 2015, at 21:40, William Herrin wrote:
>>
>> Creating jargon down in the weeds, though, that's a bad thing.
>
> 'AS 7007' is jargon to those unaware of the history and context.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AS_7007_incident
On 18/11/2015 13:46, Randy Bush wrote:
how about re-origination?
+1 Mis-distribution. or may be Mis-redistribution
you lost the part of the language which made clear that the *origin* has
been changed.
Fenced
Am 18.11.2015 um 13:08 schrieb William Herrin:
On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 6:51 AM, William Herrin wrote:
On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 5:06 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
some friends and i were talking about recent routing cfs, and found we
needed a clearer taxonomy. i throw this out.
leak - i receive P a
On Wed, 18 Nov 2015, Randy Bush wrote:
> >> 7007 - i receive P (or some sub/superset), process it in some way
> >>(likely through my igp), and re-originate it, or part of it,
> >>as my own
> >>
> >> we need a name for 7007 other then vinnie
> >
> > Laundered leak?
>
> how about
On 18 Nov 2015, at 21:40, William Herrin wrote:
> Creating jargon down in the weeds, though, that's a bad thing.
'AS 7007' is jargon to those unaware of the history and context.
---
Roland Dobbins
On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 8:50 AM, Mattia Rossi
wrote:
> So probably it should be structured like this:
>
> _ leak
> /
> hijack - mis-origination (which should be better described
> as: I originate P when I don't have the right to)
>\
El 11/18/2015 a las 7:16 AM, Randy Bush escribió:
>>> how about re-origination?
>> +1 Mis-distribution. or may be Mis-redistribution
> you lost the part of the language which made clear that the *origin* has
> been changed.
mutant?
>
> randy
On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 6:51 AM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 5:06 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
>> some friends and i were talking about recent routing cfs, and found we
>> needed a clearer taxonomy. i throw this out.
>>
>> leak - i receive P and send it on to folk to whom i should n
> Reorigination?
tried that and folk have been pushing back
> Mis-re-origination?
remiss-origination? :)
Reorigination?
Mis-re-origination?
On Nov 18, 2015 22:53, "Randy Bush" wrote:
> > What about "origin scrubbing".
>
> so now it has no origin?
>
On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 5:06 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
> some friends and i were talking about recent routing cfs, and found we
> needed a clearer taxonomy. i throw this out.
>
> leak - i receive P and send it on to folk to whom i should not send
>it for business reasons (transit, peer, ...)
> What about "origin scrubbing".
so now it has no origin?
>> how about re-origination?
>
> +1 Mis-distribution. or may be Mis-redistribution
you lost the part of the language which made clear that the *origin* has
been changed.
randy
On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 at 22:29 Randy Bush wrote:
> >> 7007 - i receive P (or some sub/superset), process it in some way
> >>(likely through my igp), and re-originate it, or part of it,
> >>as my own
> >>
> >> we need a name for 7007 other then vinnie
> >
> > Laundered leak?
>
> how
>> 7007 - i receive P (or some sub/superset), process it in some way
>>(likely through my igp), and re-originate it, or part of it,
>>as my own
>>
>> we need a name for 7007 other then vinnie
>
> Laundered leak?
how about re-origination?
Randy Bush wrote:
>
> leak - i receive P and send it on to folk to whom i should not send
>it for business reasons (transit, peer, ...)
>
> 7007 - i receive P (or some sub/superset), process it in some way
>(likely through my igp), and re-originate it, or part of it,
>as my
On 18 Nov 2015, at 17:06, Randy Bush wrote:
> we need a name for 7007 other then vinnie
Mis-distribution?
---
Roland Dobbins
32 matches
Mail list logo
