nanog mailing list archives
Re: Potential Prefix Hijack
From: "Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET" <ml () t-b-o-h net>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 07:48:22 -0500 (EST)
Hi!We were hijacked aswell, by 27664 16735 Our affected prefixes were: 94.46.0.0/16 194.88.142.0/23 194.11.23.0/24 82.102.0.0/18 195.246.238.0/23 194.107.127.0/24 81.92.192.0/19 193.227.238.0/23 We are trying to contact them in order to get some feedback, and some good explanation for this.The obviously were leaking full routing, are we all gonna annnounce 'my prefix was in there also?'
ACTUALLY............ They didn't hijack ALL my netblocks... I have 3. One was completely untouched, 1 was only hijacked by 1 site, and the last was hijacked by 2 different sites. :) Tuc
Current thread:
- Re: Potential Prefix Hijack, (continued)
- Re: Potential Prefix Hijack Network Fortius (Nov 10)
- Re: Potential Prefix Hijack jamie (Nov 10)
- RE: Potential Prefix Hijack Scott Morris (Nov 10)
- Re: Potential Prefix Hijack jamie (Nov 10)
- RE: Potential Prefix Hijack Paul Kelly :: Blacknight (Nov 11)
- Re: Fwd: RE: Potential Prefix Hijack Scott Weeks (Nov 10)
- Re: Fwd: RE: Potential Prefix Hijack Hank Nussbacher (Nov 10)
- RE: Potential Prefix Hijack Kyle Duren (Nov 10)
- Re: Potential Prefix Hijack Nuno Vieira - nfsi telecom (Nov 11)
- Re: Potential Prefix Hijack Raymond Dijkxhoorn (Nov 11)
- Re: Potential Prefix Hijack Patrick W. Gilmore (Nov 11)
- Re: Potential Prefix Hijack Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET (Nov 11)
- Re: Potential Prefix Hijack Raymond Dijkxhoorn (Nov 11)
- Re: Potential Prefix Hijack Nuno Vieira - nfsi telecom (Nov 11)
- Re: Potential Prefix Hijack Raymond Dijkxhoorn (Nov 11)
- Re: Potential Prefix Hijack Raymond Dijkxhoorn (Nov 11)
- Re: Potential Prefix Hijack Network Fortius (Nov 10)