Prefix hijacking by AS20115

Tue Sep 29 14:49:17 UTC 2015

On 9/29/15 7:26 AM, Rampley Jr, Jim F wrote:
>
>
> On 9/28/15, 10:24 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Seth Mattinen"
> <nanog-bounces at nanog.org on behalf of sethm at rollernet.us> wrote:
>
>> On 9/28/15 20:19, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>>>
>>> Is this related to 104.73.161.0/24? That's ours. :-)
>>>
>>> We'll take a look and get back to you.  Thanks for caring!
>>>
>>
>>
>> Yep, that's one of the affected prefixes.
>>
>> ~Seth
> Hi Seth, which market was this occurring?  Was this already removed?  I'm
> not seeing it this morning.  I would like to figure out what went wrong
> here.  We shouldn't be nailing up any static configuration to have caused
> a situation like this.
>

Reno, NV. I do believe they've finally withdrawn this morning (I just 
woke up, it was a long night).

~Seth