<html> <head> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"> </head> <body> <div style="font-family:Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size:12.0pt; line-height:1.3; color:#1F497D">  <div style="font-family:Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size:12.0pt; line-height:1.3; color:#1F497D"> <div> <div style="font-family:Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;font-size:12.0pt; line-height:1.3; color:#1F497D;"> <div style="font-family:Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size:12.0pt; line-height:1.3; color:#1F497D"> <div>Well, <span style="font-style:italic;">someone</span> 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.<br> </div> <div><br> 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?<br> <br> 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.<br> <br> Most likely, this case is a self-inflicted damage, though.<br> <br> Best regards<br> <br> </div> </div> </div> <br> </div> <div><br> </div> </div> </div> <div class="quoted_output_body"> <div id="quoted_header" class="quoted_header_editor" style="clear:both;"></div> <br type="attribution"> <div id="quoted_body" class="quoted_body_editor"></div> </div> <div></div> <div></div> <div></div> </body> </html>