[anti-abuse-wg] Defining routing abuse
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Defining routing abuse
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Defining routing abuse
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Carlos Friaças
cfriacas at fccn.pt
Fri Apr 12 12:57:17 CEST 2019
Hi, On Fri, 12 Apr 2019, Töma Gavrichenkov wrote: > Peace, > > This is to continue the discussion around 2019-03. Here's our today's > article about the ways some operators do traffic engineering: > https://radar.qrator.net/blog/new-hijack-attack-in-the-wild > > Should that also be treated as a policy violation? This is clearly intentional. First question that comes to mind is: Would you be willing to become one of the experts in a voluntary experts pool? -- if 2019-03 happens to get somewhere, obviously... Second question: Is the policy violation emerging from AS263444 to be treated as a policy violation? (if i read well your article, i would say "yes") Third question: Is this overloading of rogue ASNs on your prefix's AS_PATH something that should also be considered a violation? (i really don't have an answer for that...) Thanks. Regards, Carlos ps: will forward this to the LACNIC list. > -- > Töma >
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Defining routing abuse
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Defining routing abuse
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]