[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Low-numbered ASes being hijacked? [Re: BGP Update Report]

Subject: Low-numbered ASes being hijacked? [Re: BGP Update Report]
From: Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu (Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu)
Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2014 14:26:11 -0500
In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 01 Dec 2014 00:53:07 +0900." <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>

On Mon, 01 Dec 2014 00:53:07 +0900, "Paul S." said:
> Do these people never check what exactly they end up originating
> outbound due to a config change, if that's really the case?

You're new here, aren't you? :)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 848 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20141130/c1da3557/attachment.pgp>

Follow-Ups:
- Low-numbered ASes being hijacked? [Re: BGP Update Report]
  - From: list at satchell.net (Stephen Satchell)

References:
- BGP Update Report
  - From: cidr-report at potaroo.net (cidr-report at potaroo.net)
- Low-numbered ASes being hijacked? [Re: BGP Update Report]
  - From: simon.leinen at switch.ch (Simon Leinen)
- Low-numbered ASes being hijacked? [Re: BGP Update Report]
  - From: pf at tippete.net (Pierfrancesco Caci)
- Low-numbered ASes being hijacked? [Re: BGP Update Report]
  - From: contact at winterei.se (Paul S.)

Prev by Date: Low-numbered ASes being hijacked? [Re: BGP Update Report]
Next by Date: Low-numbered ASes being hijacked? [Re: BGP Update Report]
Previous by thread: Low-numbered ASes being hijacked? [Re: BGP Update Report]
Next by thread: Low-numbered ASes being hijacked? [Re: BGP Update Report]
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread