PCH.net questions and thoughts - Re: Prefix hijacking by AS20115

Bob Evans bob at FiberInternetCenter.com
Tue Sep 29 15:05:45 UTC 2015


Nice of you to check Jim. This brings up the old idea - A long time ago I
had an INOC phone by PCH.NET - It never rang, as we filter our outbound
with detail everywhere we announce. ISPs need to provide us their address
list.

And the few times I needed to use it , no one ever answered. ( It was a
decade ago before NANOG membership.) So after a while I too ignored it.
Maybe this was an idea ahead of it's time ? From this painful mishap, it
could have been a great solution for NOC Engineers to help each. I find
peeringdb often outdated as companies change around and sluggish return
call if at all.  Most are like a sales line number post.

I see now a long list of registered networks in the PCH directory. Are
networks actually paying attention and using it. Is it time to take
another look ?  At midnight in your organization could you get a NOC
person with " proper BGP skills and access " to answer and care about a
bad announcement ?

https://inoc-dba-web.pch.net/inoc-dba/console.cgi?op=show_pubdir&list=org
 Link above shows lots more networks listed on the
 INOC-DBA Public Directory: Organizations

But have you used it? Did it work for you when you needed it ?
Any further comments are appreciated.

This seems like a very good proper civil approach - maybe this or
something like it ARIN might help promote and endorse as a benefit to the
community ? Be nice if with the cash they did something simple like this
and got all of us to use it? Special line forwarding ? A Emergency Only
NOC App for our phones for just this kind of situation - one that
registers a specific ASN and pin code we set on the registration page ?

Thank You
Bob Evans
CTO




>
>
> 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.
>
>





More information about the NANOG mailing list