questions regarding prefix hijacking

Paul Donner pdonner at cisco.com
Wed Aug 7 22:22:08 UTC 2013


> It appears AS3549 is announcing 10.0.0.0/8. I noticed it from an
> AS3549 customer.
> 
>>From GBLX looking glass, ATL1
> 
> traceroute
> Protocol [ip]: ip
> Target IP address: 10.0.0.1
> Source address:
> Numeric display [n]: n
> Timeout in seconds [3]: 1
> Probe count [3]: 2
> Minimum Time to Live [1]: 1
> Maximum Time to Live [30]: 30
> Port Number [33434]:
> Loose, Strict, Record, Timestamp, Verbose[none]:
> Type escape sequence to abort.
> Tracing the route to 10.0.0.1
> VRF info: (vrf in name/id, vrf out name/id)
>   1 te3-1-10G.par9.CTA1.GRU.gblx.net (67.16.142.26) 120 msec 124 msec
>   2 122.5.125.189.static.impsat.net.br (189.125.5.122) 120 msec 120 msec
>   3 10.0.0.1 [AS 262487] 124 msec 120 msec
> 
> Apparently the customer didn't have proper inbound filter......
> Reply from 10.0.0.1: bytes=32 time=132ms TTL=61
> 
> 


On 08/07/2013 02:20 AM, Martin T wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> as probably many of you know, it's possible to create a "route" object
> to RIPE database for an address space which is allocated outside the
> RIPE region using the RIPE-NCC-RPSL-MNT maintainer object. For example
> an address space is from APNIC or ARIN region and AS is from RIPE
> region. For example a LIR in RIPE region creates a "route" object to
> RIPE database for 157.166.266.0/24(used by Turner Broadcasting System)
> prefix without having written permission from Turner Broadcasting
> System and as this LIR uses up-link providers who create prefix
> filters automatically according to RADb database entries, this ISP is
> soon able to announce this 157.166.266.0/24 prefix to Internet. This
> should disturb the availability of the real 157.166.266.0/24 network
> on Internet? Has there been such situations in history? Isn't there a
> method against such hijacking? Or have I misunderstood something and
> this isn't possible?
> 
> 
> regards,
> Martin
> 
> 



More information about the NANOG mailing list