Regarding smaller prefix for hijack protection

Anurag Bhatia me at
Thu Aug 30 11:54:16 UTC 2012

Hello everyone!

I tried looking on net but couldn't found direct answer, so thought to ask
here for some advise.

Is using /24 a must to protect (a bit) against route hijacking? We all
remember case of YouTube 2008 and hijacking in Pakistan. At that time
YouTube was using /22 and thus /24 (more specific) announcement took almost
all of Google's traffic even when AS path was long. So Google's direct also
likely sent packets to Pakistan. Later Google too used /24 (and I guess /25
too to effect some region of internet). Similar case I remember for issue
reported between Altus and hijacking by someone connected to Cleaveland
exchange when ISP was using /23 and spammer used /24.

So can we conclude that one should always use /24 to make sure that they
loose as little as possible traffic during prefix hijacking?

Also, if one uses /22 and /24 - will both prefixes will show in Global
routing table? I know /24 will be prefered but will ISP see /22 as well or
it will pop up only when /24 is filtered?

For one of IP's of, it seems it is coming from /16 and /24

How can one print similar result from a route server like say Oregon route
views or any ISP's server? I always /24 when looking for that IP. (in
simple words - how does this magic of popping both prefixes? I
failed to do get same result from HE's route server)



Anurag Bhatia

Linkedin <> |
Google+ <>

More information about the NANOG mailing list