<html>
  <head>
    <meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
  </head>
  <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">I don't think I've seen anyone.<br>
      <br>
      How does a NSP end up <b>originating</b> other people's prefixes
      anyway? Is that some funky AS-path rewriting gone awry when
      redistributing from IGP into {e}BGP?<br>
      <br>
      I personally would love some information.<br>
      <br>
      Leaks, the traditional ones, usually only reroute by inserting the
      leaker's own ASN in the path.<br>
      <br>
      On 7/1/2015 午前 01:01, Faisal Hasan wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote
cite="mid:CAM2x3i_W7cNTqgboAbnV4GRWriOyHJ0-pv1ZNHnkHc8DhKL_hw@mail.gmail.com"
      type="cite">
      <div dir="ltr">
        <div>Hi All,</div>
        <div><br>
        </div>
        I see a lot of discussing is going on about the BD Route link at
        nanog. Did anyone respond about it from BD side?
        <div><br>
        </div>
        <div>Thanks</div>
        <div>Faisal<br>
          <div>
            <div class="gmail_quote">---------- Forwarded message
              ----------<br>
              From: <b class="gmail_sendername">Graham Beneke</b> <span
                dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
                  href="mailto:graham@apolix.co.za">graham@apolix.co.za</a>></span><br>
              Date: Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 10:45 AM<br>
              Subject: Re: Route leak in Bangladesh<br>
              To: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                href="mailto:nanog@nanog.org">nanog@nanog.org</a><br>
              <br>
              <br>
              On 30/06/2015 17:09, Job Snijders wrote:<br>
              > If you were the network causing a leak of this type,
              prefix filters on<br>
              > inbound facing your customers might not have
              prevented this.<br>
              ><br>
              > If you are a network providing transit to the leak
              originator mentioned<br>
              > in the above paragraph, I believe a prefix based
              filter could have made<br>
              > a big difference.<br>
              <br>
              We seem to be assuming that this leak occurred within the
              context of a<br>
              customer-provider BGP relationship.<br>
              <br>
              But what if this is not the case?<br>
              <br>
              What if this was a peering session - perhaps via a route
              server at an<br>
              exchange point. max-pref on a session with a route server
              is an<br>
              extremely blunt (and potentially ineffective) tool for the
              job.<br>
              <br>
              In some regions the use to route servers and the lack of
              clue about<br>
              anything BGP beyond one session to the route server (and
              one session to<br>
              transit) is scary. We place our faith in the IXP operator,
              that they<br>
              know best, while there may be no evidence that they do...
              ;-)<br>
              <span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
                  --<br>
                  Graham Beneke<br>
                </font></span></div>
            <br>
          </div>
        </div>
      </div>
      <br>
      <fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
      <br>
      <pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
nog mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:nog@bdnog.org">nog@bdnog.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://mailman.bdnog.org/mailman/listinfo/nog">http://mailman.bdnog.org/mailman/listinfo/nog</a>
</pre>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
  </body>
</html>