[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Indonesian ISP Moratel announces Google's prefixes



On Nov 07, 2012, at 00:35 , Jian Gu <guxiaojian at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hmm, look at this screen shot from the blog, 8.8.8.0/24 was orignated from
> Google.

Everyone who posted in this thread was well aware of that.  (Well, except me in my first post. :)  Google was still the victim, and it was still not their fault.

You are showing wide and clear ignorance on the basics of peering.  Which is fine, the vast majority of the planet hasn't a clue what peering is.  However, the rest of the people who do not know what they are talking about have managed to avoid commenting on the subject to 10K+ of their not-so-closest friends.

To be clear, if you had started with something like: "Why is Google originating the route?  Doesn't that make it valid?", you would have gotten a lot of help & support.  But instead you started by claiming it was Google's fault and they could stop this by setting "the correct BGP attributes".  I note you still haven't told us what those attributes would be despite repeated questions.

Perhaps it's time to admit you don't know what attributes, and you need a little more education on peering in general?

When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

-- 
TTFN,
patrick


> tom at edge01.sfo01> show route 8.8.8.8
> 
> inet.0: 422196 destinations, 422196 routes (422182 active, 0 holddown,
> 14 hidden)
> + = Active Route, - = Last Active, * = Both
> 8.8.8.0/24         *[BGP/170] 00:27:02, MED 18, localpref 100
>                      AS path: 4436 3491 23947 15169 I
>> to 69.22.153.1 via ge-1/0/9.0
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 9:33 PM, Hank Nussbacher <hank at efes.iucc.ac.il>wrote:
> 
>> At 21:21 06/11/2012 -0800, Jian Gu wrote:
>> 
>> If Google announces 8.8.8.0/24 to you and you in turn start announcing to
>> the Internet 8.8.8.0/24 as originating from you, then a certain section
>> of the Internet will believe your announcement over Google's.    This has
>> happened many times before due to improper filters, but this is the first
>> time I have seen the victim being blamed.  Interesting concept.
>> 
>> -Hank
>> 
>> I don't know what Google and Moratel's peering agreement, but "leak"?
>>> educate me, Google is announcing /24 for all of their 4 NS prefix and
>>> 8.8.8.0/24 for their public DNS server, how did Moratel leak those routes
>>> to Internet?
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 9:13 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore <patrick at ianai.net
>>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Nov 07, 2012, at 00:07 , Jian Gu <guxiaojian at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Where did you get the idea that a Moratel customer announced a
>>>> google-owned
>>>>> prefix to Moratel and Moratel did not have the proper filters in
>>> place?
>>>>> according to the blog, all google's 4 authoritative DNS server
>>> networks
>>>> and
>>>>> 8.8.8.0/24 were wrongly routed to Moratel, what's the possiblity for
>>> a
>>>>> Moratel customers announce all those prefixes?
>>>> 
>>>> Ah, right, they just leaked Google's prefix.  I thought a customer
>>>> originated the prefix.
>>>> 
>>>> Original question still stands.  Which attribute do you expect Google to
>>>> set to stop this?
>>>> 
>>>> Hint: Don't say No-Advertise, unless you want peers to only talk to the
>>>> adjacent AS, not their customers or their customers' customers, etc.
>>>> 
>>>> Looking forward to your answer.
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> TTFN,
>>>> patrick
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 9:02 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore <patrick at ianai.net
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Nov 06, 2012, at 23:48 , Jian Gu <guxiaojian at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> What do you mean hijack? Google is peering with Moratel, if Google
>>> does
>>>>>> not
>>>>>>> want Moratel to advertise its routes to Moratel's peers/upstreams,
>>> then
>>>>>>> Google should've set the correct BGP attributes in the first place.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> That doesn't make the slightest bit of sense.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> If a Moratel customer announced a Google-owned prefix to Moratel, and
>>>>>> Moratel did not have the proper filters in place, there is nothing
>>>> Google
>>>>>> could do to stop the hijack from happening.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Exactly what attribute do you think would stop this?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> TTFN,
>>>>>> patrick
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 3:35 AM, Anurag Bhatia <me at anuragbhatia.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Another case of route hijack -
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>> http://blog.cloudflare.com/**why-google-went-offline-today-**
>>> and-a-bit-about<http://blog.cloudflare.com/why-google-went-offline-today-and-a-bit-about>
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I am curious if big networks have any pre-defined filters for big
>>>>>> content
>>>>>>>> providers like Google to avoid these? I am sure internet community
>>>>>> would be
>>>>>>>> working in direction to somehow prevent these issues. Curious to
>>> know
>>>>>>>> developments so far.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Anurag Bhatia
>>>>>>>> anuragbhatia.com
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Linkedin <http://in.linkedin.com/in/**anuragbhatia21<http://in.linkedin.com/in/anuragbhatia21>>
>>> |
>>>>>>>> Twitter<https://twitter.com/**anurag_bhatia<https://twitter.com/anurag_bhatia>
>>>> |
>>>>>>>> Google+ <https://plus.google.com/**118280168625121532854<https://plus.google.com/118280168625121532854>
>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>>