Looking at these two pages, using the "Table View" option: https://stat.ripe.net/widget/routing-history#w.resource=AS201640 https://stat.ripe.net/widget/routing-history#w.resource=AS200002 I am seeing a couple of pairs of announcements that seem to me to be worth seeking an explanation for, specifically, these ones: 210.57.0.0/19 AS201640 2014-08-26 00:00:00 UTC 210.57.0.0/19 AS200002 2014-10-01 00:00:00 UTC 212.124.75.0/24 AS200002 2014-07-09 00:00:00 UTC 212.124.64.0/20 AS201640 2014-08-26 00:00:00 UTC Regards, rfg
Hello, One of their providers, after being informed, have now stopped giving transit to the mentioned prefixes in this mailinglist while they investigate further. I find it strange that there is a debate about a "standard" matter on public mailinglists for several weeks when the involved parties have not been informed. The RIPE database might need some better security regarding route objects, but there is a limited number of providers and most of them will correct errors when informed. J Den 10/11/14 04:01, skrev Ronald F. Guilmette:
Looking at these two pages, using the "Table View" option:
https://stat.ripe.net/widget/routing-history#w.resource=AS201640 https://stat.ripe.net/widget/routing-history#w.resource=AS200002
I am seeing a couple of pairs of announcements that seem to me to be worth seeking an explanation for, specifically, these ones:
210.57.0.0/19 AS201640 2014-08-26 00:00:00 UTC 210.57.0.0/19 AS200002 2014-10-01 00:00:00 UTC
212.124.75.0/24 AS200002 2014-07-09 00:00:00 UTC 212.124.64.0/20 AS201640 2014-08-26 00:00:00 UTC
Regards, rfg
participants (2)
-
Jørgen Hovland -
Ronald F. Guilmette