RE: YouTube IP Hijacking

["Randy Epstein" <repstein () chello at>]

Tomas L. Byrnes wrote:

> Perhaps certain ASes that are considered "high priority", like Google,
> YouTube, Yahoo, MS (at least their update servers), can be trusted to
> propagate routes that are not aggregated/filtered, so as to give them
> control over their reachability and immunity to longer-prefix hijacking
> (especially problematic with things like MS update sites).

Not to stir up a huge debate here, but if I were a day trader, I could live
without YouTube for a day, but not e*trade or Ameritrade as it would be my
livelihood.  If I were an eBay seller, why would I care about YouTube?  You
get the idea.  What makes Google, YouTube, Yahoo, MS, etc more important?  

More importantly, why is PCCW not prefix filtering their downstreams?
Certainly AS17557 cannot be trusted without a filter.

Randy

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Simon Lockhart [mailto:simon () slimey org] 
> Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2008 2:07 PM
> To: Tomas L. Byrnes
> Cc: Michael Smith; neil.fenemor () fx net nz; will () harg net; 
> nanog () merit edu
> Subject: Re: YouTube IP Hijacking
>
> On Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 01:49:00PM -0800, Tomas L. Byrnes wrote:
> > Which means that, by advertising routes more specific than the ones 
> > they are poisoning, it may well be possible to restore universal 
> > connectivity to YouTube.
>
> Well, if you can get them in there.... Youtube tried that, to 
> restore service to the rest of the world, and the 
> announcements didn't propogate.
>
> Simon