AS11296 -- Hijacked?
gbonser at seven.com
Wed Sep 29 19:31:21 UTC 2010
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nathan Eisenberg [mailto:nathan at atlasnetworks.us]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 12:05 PM
> To: nanog at nanog.org
> Subject: RE: AS11296 -- Hijacked?
> > Maybe you didn't recognize the original poster, but I did, and I
> would take
> > what he had to say at least seriously enough to have a look. His
> > mail, while not giving people the information they wanted (as if it
> > matters) did mention that the upstream appears to have cut them off.
> > is a pretty good indication that *something* was going on there.
> > I don't believe it is anyone's job here to conform to the
> expectations of
> > anyone else aside from general list etiquette and some level of
> sanity. He
> > put the information out, it is up to the reader in how they weight
> it. I don't
> > understand your continued banging on the issue. All he did was put
> > information out there. He doesn't need to meet your criteria, you
> are free to
> > apply that as you will in the privacy of your own cubicle.
> Again - appealing to personal authority is a fallacy. It carries no
> logical weight who the poster is, and has no place in a decision
> process of such magnitude.
Again, nobody said the original poster had any authority over anything.
He posted a suspicion. It would be up to the individual entities
involved to decide if they actually want to take any action based on
that or not. Nobody said anyone had to do anything and anyone who
blocks traffic based ONLY on a message to a mailing list is an imbecile
anyway. Nobody handing any major amounts of traffic is going to base
their filtration on third party mailing list postings so I really don't
see what the issue is. I read the original post as a call to look into
it and that they were going to be reported to ARIN for further looking
into. The original posting said "some folks may wish to blackhole the
above" and that is all. But it did strike me as odd that a North
Carolina regional ISP would have only a single peer and that peer has no
presence that I can determine in North Carolina.
More information about the NANOG