CloudFlare issues?

Tom Beecher beecher at
Tue Jun 25 00:03:26 UTC 2019

Disclaimer : I am a Verizon employee via the Yahoo acquisition. I do not
work on 701.  My comments are my own opinions only.

Respectfully, I believe Cloudflare’s public comments today have been a real
disservice. This blog post, and your CEO on Twitter today, took every
opportunity to say “DAMN THOSE MORONS AT 701!”. They’re not.

You are 100% right that 701 should have had some sort of protection
mechanism in place to prevent this. But do we know they didn’t? Do we know
it was there and just setup wrong? Did another change at another time break
what was there? I used 701 many  jobs ago and they absolutely had filtering
in place; it saved my bacon when I screwed up once and started
readvertising a full table from a 2nd provider. They smacked my session
down an I got a nice call about it.

You guys have repeatedly accused them of being dumb without even speaking
to anyone yet from the sounds of it. Shouldn’t we be working on facts?

Should they have been easier to reach once an issue was detected? Probably.
They’re certainly not the first vendor to have a slow response time though.
Seems like when an APAC carrier takes 18 hours to get back to us, we write
it off as the cost of doing business.

It also would have been nice, in my opinion, to take a harder stance on the
BGP optimizer that generated he bogus routes, and the steel company that
failed BGP 101 and just gladly reannounced one upstream to another. 701 is
culpable for their mistakes, but there doesn’t seem like there is much
appetite to shame the other contributors.

You’re right to use this as a lever to push for proper filtering , RPKI,
best practices. I’m 100% behind that. We can all be a hell of a lot better
at what we do. This stuff happens more than it should, but less than it

But this industry is one big ass glass house. What’s that thing about
stones again?

On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 18:06 Justin Paine via NANOG <nanog at>

> FYI for the group -- we just published this:
> _________________
> *Justin Paine*
> Director of Trust & Safety
> PGP: BBAA 6BCE 3305 7FD6 6452 7115 57B6 0114 DE0B 314D
> 101 Townsend St., San Francisco, CA 94107
> <,+San+Francisco,+CA+94107?entry=gmail&source=g>
> On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 2:25 PM Mark Tinka <mark.tinka at> wrote:
>> On 24/Jun/19 18:09, Pavel Lunin wrote:
>> >
>> > Hehe, I haven't seen this text before. Can't agree more.
>> >
>> > Get your tie back on Job, nobody listened again.
>> >
>> > More seriously, I see no difference between prefix hijacking and the
>> > so called bgp optimisation based on completely fake announces on
>> > behalf of other people.
>> >
>> > If ever your upstream or any other party who your company pays money
>> > to does this dirty thing, now it's just the right moment to go explain
>> > them that you consider this dangerous for your business and are
>> > looking for better partners among those who know how to run internet
>> > without breaking it.
>> We struggled with a number of networks using these over eBGP sessions
>> they had with networks that shared their routing data with BGPmon. It
>> sent off all sorts of alarms, and troubleshooting it was hard when a
>> network thinks you are de-aggregating massively, and yet you know you
>> aren't.
>> Each case took nearly 3 weeks to figure out.
>> BGP optimizers are the bane of my existence.
>> Mark.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the NANOG mailing list