Fwd: Prefix hijacking by Michael Lindsay via Internap
noc at link-telecom.net
Sun Aug 21 05:43:46 CDT 2011
Of course, we have less customers than we have a year ago. Not a zero in any
case. Some parts of network was rented to other ISPs and will be returned.
Some was NATed after upstream shut down the BGP. How much IP we need now we
will discuss with RIPE NCC, if they will. First, we should have to shut down
the hijackers, isn't it?
2011/8/21 Erik Bais <ebais at a2b-internet.com>
> Hi Denis,
> Convenient as it may be to use a LIR and their historic provided prefixes,
> have you thought about starting with a clean slate ?
> If the company was close to bankrupt and one can only assume that it didn't
> require a couple /16's and a couple /19's ...
> Didn't you get ANY questions from RIPE in that regard when you discussed
> topic with them ? The reason why those prefixes where provided isn't valid
> anymore and if you are restarting the business even a /21 should be enough
> Even in Russia a will take some time to get the customers back, especially
> if they have been offline for some time. (If they where not offline, the
> prefixes wouldn't have been hijacked correct ? ... )
> Next to this all, none of the prefixes that I currently see under the
> AS have a route-object in the RIPE db and the AS object AS31733 isn't
> updated since 2008, as none of the listed AS's there are current / active
> upstreams / peers.
> From where I stand it doesn't surprise me that your upstreams don't want to
> advertize it and if they would, don't be surprised if some networks filter
> your prefixes regardless if you are listed on a shady list on Spamhaus.
> Erik Bais
More information about the NANOG