nanog mailing list archives
Re: Latest instalment of the "hijacked /16s" story
From: Justin Shore <justin () justinshore com>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 23:10:39 -0500
Is the whole AS (33302) rogue like the AS advertising the SF Bay Packet Radio block is? Looking at the WHOIS for some of the prefixes advertised by both ASs, I see some common company names. That would lead me to believe that 33302 is no better than 33211 but I can't confirm that. Any takers?
Justin Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
Another legacy /16, after the previous one - the sf bay packet radio /16 http://www.47-usc-230c2.org/chapter3.html This time 128.168/16 - and by the same group that seems to have acquired control of the earlier one. --srs
Current thread:
- Latest instalment of the "hijacked /16s" story Suresh Ramasubramanian (Jun 17)
- Re: Latest instalment of the "hijacked /16s" story Justin Shore (Jun 17)
- Re: Latest instalment of the "hijacked /16s" story Suresh Ramasubramanian (Jun 17)
- Re: Latest instalment of the "hijacked /16s" story Randy Bush (Jun 17)
- RE: Latest instalment of the "hijacked /16s" story Tomas L. Byrnes (Jun 17)
- Re: Latest instalment of the "hijacked /16s" story Joe Provo (Jun 18)
- Re: Latest instalment of the "hijacked /16s" story Jared Mauch (Jun 18)
- Re: Latest instalment of the "hijacked /16s" story Randy Bush (Jun 18)
- RE: Latest instalment of the "hijacked /16s" story Tomas L. Byrnes (Jun 17)
- RE: Latest instalment of the "hijacked /16s" story michael.dillon (Jun 18)
- Re: Latest instalment of the "hijacked /16s" story Justin Shore (Jun 17)
