"Defensive" BGP hijacking?

Hugo Slabbert hugo at slabnet.com
Sun Sep 11 20:54:18 UTC 2016

Hopefully this is operational enough, though obviously leaning more towards the policy side of things:

What does nanog think about a DDoS scrubber hijacking a network "for defensive purposes"?


"For about six hours, we were seeing attacks of more than 200 Gbps hitting us,” Townsend explained. “What we were doing was for defensive purposes. We were simply trying to get them to stop and to gather as much information as possible about the botnet they were using and report that to the proper authorities.”

Hugo Slabbert       | email, xmpp/jabber: hugo at slabnet.com
pgp key: B178313E   | also on Signal
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 850 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20160911/f478f164/attachment.sig>

More information about the NANOG mailing list