![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/296c2094b1de39ba00ea926c061d4fda.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
Peace, This is to continue the discussion around 2019-03. Here's our today's article about the ways some operators do traffic engineering: https://radar.qrator.net/blog/new-hijack-attack-in-the-wild Should that also be treated as a policy violation? This is clearly intentional. -- Töma
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/883c54c875f5a36de575da85f43a7c50.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
Hi, On Fri, 12 Apr 2019, Töma Gavrichenkov wrote:
Peace,
This is to continue the discussion around 2019-03. Here's our today's article about the ways some operators do traffic engineering: https://radar.qrator.net/blog/new-hijack-attack-in-the-wild
Should that also be treated as a policy violation? This is clearly intentional.
First question that comes to mind is: Would you be willing to become one of the experts in a voluntary experts pool? -- if 2019-03 happens to get somewhere, obviously... Second question: Is the policy violation emerging from AS263444 to be treated as a policy violation? (if i read well your article, i would say "yes") Third question: Is this overloading of rogue ASNs on your prefix's AS_PATH something that should also be considered a violation? (i really don't have an answer for that...) Thanks. Regards, Carlos ps: will forward this to the LACNIC list.
-- Töma
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/daa9ea618351eb68baad89b6dfab4f28.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
In message <CALZ3u+YhuC1-nho1bt6Wtj88P4PQXYkNnSevKASO_NrVmb0POA@mail.gmail.com>, =?UTF-8?Q?T=C3=B6ma_Gavrichenkov?= <ximaera@gmail.com> wrote:
Peace,
This is to continue the discussion around 2019-03. Here's our today's article about the ways some operators do traffic engineering: https://radar.qrator.net/blog/new-hijack-attack-in-the-wild
Should that also be treated as a policy violation? This is clearly intentional.
The answer, I think, should depend only on the answers to two key questions: 1) Was the routing done with the knowledge and consent of the prefix owner(s)? 2) If not, then was the routing withdrawn promptly when the route originator was notified that he/she/it was doing something wrong?
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/296c2094b1de39ba00ea926c061d4fda.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 9:16 PM Ronald F. Guilmette <rfg@tristatelogic.com> wrote:
The answer, I think, should depend only on the answers to two key questions:
1) Was the routing done with the knowledge and consent of the prefix owner(s)?
This is the tricky part. Routing — yes. *Deaggregation* — no. -- Töma
participants (3)
-
Carlos Friaças
-
Ronald F. Guilmette
-
Töma Gavrichenkov