Skip to content

pe1 accidentally originates 8.8.8.0/24

Case 23 of the Network Change Verdict Corpus. Category: hijack. Expected verdict: unsafe (an experienced operator would reject it).

Why it is expected unsafe

A fat-fingered network statement hijacks 8.8.8.0/24 for our own customer. Export filters keep it from the upstream and the peer.

Note: Not covered by the intent spec, which has no check for unexpected routes at the customer.

The config change

Against the FRR configs of the base lab:

--- a/pe1.conf
+++ b/pe1.conf
@@ -60,3 +60,9 @@
   neighbor 10.0.3.2 send-community
  exit-address-family
 !
+ip route 8.8.8.0/24 blackhole
+router bgp 65000
+ address-family ipv4 unicast
+  network 8.8.8.0/24
+ exit-address-family
+!

What each strategy said

The expected verdict was committed to git before any run. All three strategies tested the same running lab (method).

Strategy Verdict Result Checks that failed
Ping only safe ❌ approved a bad change none
All BGP sessions up safe ❌ approved a bad change none
Netdryrun intent checks safe ❌ approved a bad change none

What Netdryrun flagged

Nothing: every check in the intent spec passed, so Netdryrun called the change safe.

Against the pre-registered verdict this counts as one of Netdryrun's losses (false pass).

Finding after the run

The pre-registered verdict above is unchanged. From AMENDMENTS.md:

Cases 18, 23, 21 and 30 are real misses. 18 and 23 are gaps in the intent spec (no check for unexpected routes reaching the customer or the upstream). 21 and 30 are latent risks that no steady-state check can see; they need a failure-injection scenario where the customer or peer actually misbehaves. These stay as losses.

Reproduce it

On Linux or WSL2 with Docker and containerlab, from a checkout of the repository:

python corpus/run.py --case 23

Case file: corpus/cases/23-fat-finger-third-party-origin.yml. Published result: netdryrun 0.2.0, containerlab 0.81.1, FRR quay.io/frrouting/frr:10.4.1, commit ec23379, run on 2026-10-26.