This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[anti-abuse-wg] Mysteries of the Internet: AS65000
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Mysteries of the Internet: AS65000
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Mysteries of the Internet: AS65000
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Ángel González Berdasco
angel.gonzalez at incibe.es
Mon Apr 15 03:15:39 CEST 2019
Well, someone is announcing those prefixes as linked to AS65000. If he itself was using AS65000 internally with those prefixes, and that leaked to their public interface, it would be a false positive, but lacking some agreement between the receiver and their peer involving AS65000, imho those entries were used internally by some party, which then inadvertently shared them to peers that didn't filter it, etc. With the end result that such entries could made these prefixes unreachable. Here, one side will be the owners of those ip ranges, but there's not an owner of the AS as such. Who should be complaining that they are 'advettising their AS' incorrectly? What if a prefix was 10.0.0.0/8 ? Would IANA need to state that it didn't allow AS x to advertise a private range? Maybe that step should be skipped for reserved ranges. Most likely, this case is a self-inflicted damage, though. Best regards -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: </ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20190415/4145a6fc/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Mysteries of the Internet: AS65000
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Mysteries of the Internet: AS65000
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]