[#135346] Unauthorized BGP Announcements (follow up to Hijacked Networks)
mysidia at gmail.com
Tue Jan 31 21:25:17 CST 2012
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 7:15 PM, David Conrad <drc at virtualized.org> wrote:
> "We have a contractual relationship with our customer to announce that
> space. We have neither a contractual relationship (in this context) with
> the RIR nor the RIR's customer. The RIR and/or the RIR's customer should
> resolve this issue with our customer."
This is the point at which you really really want to turn the tables and
get someone who desires to announce that very provider's own space
approaching you, so you "enter a contractual relationship" with that party
to do so, since (apparently) according to that provider you don't have
an obligation to prevent this.
And you have a nice letter from them to prove it to any upstreams, that
resource issues are to be resolved with end users.
If according to that provider those issues should be resolved between the
RIR listed address space holder and the customer directly, (apparently),
you are not to be involved in preventing a customer from hijacking
theirown assigned prefix. Because the same logic must apply to their
very own address space; it is up to them and the RIR to resolve their
issue with the elusive end user.
But then you realize the only party that could ever approach you with a
route them another provider's space would be one of those evil spammers....
It as an eye-opening experience.
More information about the NANOG