http://bgpmon.net/blog/?p=80 BGPmon.net BLOG Tue, 31 Aug 2010 15:46:18 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 http://bgpmon.net/blog/?p=80&cpage=1#comment-306 Did AS13214 really hijack the Internet? | BGPmon.net Blog Mon, 11 May 2009 18:53:51 +0000 http://bgpmon.net/blog/?p=80#comment-306 [...] So looks like it wasn’t a global hijack, it was only seen by one routeview peer.  This is a very similar event as the one we saw on November 11 2008. [...] [...] So looks like it wasn’t a global hijack, it was only seen by one routeview peer.  This is a very similar event as the one we saw on November 11 2008. [...]

]]> http://bgpmon.net/blog/?p=80&cpage=1#comment-76 Gustavo » Blog Archive » antigo mas legal xD - Monitoração de prefixos BGP na Internet Mon, 16 Feb 2009 19:00:18 +0000 http://bgpmon.net/blog/?p=80#comment-76 [...] autônomos ou grandes operadoras de telecomunicações. Ainda de acordo com as análises do BGPmon e da Renesys, este problema durou aproximadamente 5 minutos. Mas, mesmo depois deste período, [...] [...] autônomos ou grandes operadoras de telecomunicações. Ainda de acordo com as análises do BGPmon e da Renesys, este problema durou aproximadamente 5 minutos. Mas, mesmo depois deste período, [...]

]]> http://bgpmon.net/blog/?p=80&cpage=1#comment-26 Downtime ! | mimimi ? Thu, 13 Nov 2008 19:16:52 +0000 http://bgpmon.net/blog/?p=80#comment-26 [...] het internet annonceerde.  Onlangs had ik mij voor mijn wergever zijn IP range ingeschreven op BGPmon en hun systeem werkt zeer goed, wegens het tijdsverschil had ik er anders nooit iets van gemarkt [...] [...] het internet annonceerde.  Onlangs had ik mij voor mijn wergever zijn IP range ingeschreven op BGPmon en hun systeem werkt zeer goed, wegens het tijdsverschil had ik er anders nooit iets van gemarkt [...]

]]> http://bgpmon.net/blog/?p=80&cpage=1#comment-23 andree Tue, 11 Nov 2008 23:10:53 +0000 http://bgpmon.net/blog/?p=80#comment-23 The hijack was indeed fairly local, it was detected by a few number of peers, meaning that these hijack updates didn't propagate very far. This event is actually very similar to one we saw in September when AS8997 "leaked" a full table with their AS as origin AS. This was also discussed on Nanog, see: http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/msg11667.html The hijack was indeed fairly local, it was detected by a few number of peers, meaning that these hijack updates didn’t propagate very far.
This event is actually very similar to one we saw in September when AS8997 “leaked” a full table with their AS as origin AS. This was also discussed on Nanog, see:
http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/msg11667.html

]]> http://bgpmon.net/blog/?p=80&cpage=1#comment-22 rodney Tue, 11 Nov 2008 22:33:51 +0000 http://bgpmon.net/blog/?p=80#comment-22 Yeah I think that might be a possible explanation, although I think BGP and other network control traffic always receive higher (QoS) priority. It would be interesting to know how much traffic was really attracted to AS16735 as the hijack was fairly local. It might not have been that much. Yeah I think that might be a possible explanation, although I think BGP and other network control traffic always receive higher (QoS) priority. It would be interesting to know how much traffic was really attracted to AS16735 as the hijack was fairly local. It might not have been that much.

]]> http://bgpmon.net/blog/?p=80&cpage=1#comment-20 Leen Besselink Tue, 11 Nov 2008 21:18:02 +0000 http://bgpmon.net/blog/?p=80#comment-20 If I'm not mistaken and I've heared right, when these things happen, the AS might have attracted so much traffic that it would fill up the links to external networks and loose BGP-sessions because of it. That's why the announcements went a way and came back each time. If I’m not mistaken and I’ve heared right, when these things happen, the AS might have attracted so much traffic that it would fill up the links to external networks and loose BGP-sessions because of it. That’s why the announcements went a way and came back each time.

]]>