RE: YouTube IP Hijacking

["Tomas L. Byrnes" <tomb () byrneit net>]

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.

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Smith [mailto:msmith () internap com] 
> Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2008 1:23 PM
> To: neil.fenemor () fx net nz; Tomas L. Byrnes
> Cc: will () harg net; nanog () merit edu
> Subject: Re: YouTube IP Hijacking
>
> Exactly... They inadvertently made the details of their 
> oppression more readily apparent...
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: owner-nanog () merit edu <owner-nanog () merit edu>
> To: Tomas L. Byrnes <tomb () byrneit net>
> Cc: Will Hargrave <will () harg net>; nanog () merit edu <nanog () merit edu>
> Sent: Sun Feb 24 16:00:35 2008
> Subject: Re: YouTube IP Hijacking
>
>
> While they are deliberately blocking Youtube nationally, I 
> suspect the wider issue has no malice, and is a case of 
> poorly constructed/ implemented  outbound policies on their 
> part, and poorly constructed/ implemented inbound polices on 
> their upstreams part.
>
> On 25/02/2008, at 9:49 AM, Tomas L. Byrnes wrote:
>
> > Pakistan is deliberately blocking Youtube.
> >
> > http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/02/24/1628213
> >
> > Maybe we should all block Pakistan.
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-nanog () merit edu [mailto:owner-nanog () merit edu] 
> On Behalf 
> > > Of Will Hargrave
> > > Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2008 12:39 PM
> > > To: nanog () nanog org
> > > Subject: Re: YouTube IP Hijacking
> > >
> > >
> > > Sargun Dhillon wrote:
> > >
> > > > So, it seems that youtube's ip block has been hijacked by a more 
> > > > specific prefix being advertised. This is a case of IP
> > > hijacking, not
> > > > case of DNS poisoning, youtube engineers doing something
> > > stupid, etc.
> > > > For people that don't know. The router will try to get the most 
> > > > specific prefix. This is by design, not by accident.
> > >
> > > You are making the assumption of malice when the more 
> likely cause is 
> > > one of accident on the part of probably stressed NOC staff 
> at 17557.
> > > They probably have that /24 going to a gateway walled garden box 
> > > which replies with a site saying 'we have banned this', 
> and that /24 
> > > route is leaking outside of their AS via PCCW due to dodgy 
> > > filters/communities.
> > >
> > > Will
>
> Neil Fenemor
> FX Networks