nanog mailing list archives
RE: YouTube IP Hijacking
From: "Tomas L. Byrnes" <tomb () byrneit net>
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 16:36:32 -0800
I'm sure we can all find a list of "critical infrastructure" ASes that could be trusted to peer via the "high priority" AS. I'd say that the criteria should be: 1: Hosted at a Tier 1 provider. 2: Within a jurisdiction where North American operators have a good chance of having the law on their side in case of any network outage caused by the entity. 3: Considered highly competent technically. 4: With state of the art security and operations. OTOH: I would say that, until today, those who advocate not engaging in any kind of ethnic or political profiling would have considered 17557, as a national telco, a trusted route source.
-----Original Message----- From: Randy Epstein [mailto:repstein () chello at] Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2008 4:15 PM To: Tomas L. Byrnes; 'Simon Lockhart' Cc: 'Michael Smith'; neil.fenemor () fx net nz; will () harg net; nanog () merit edu Subject: RE: YouTube IP Hijacking Tomas L. Byrnes wrote:Perhaps certain ASes that are considered "high priority",like Google,YouTube, Yahoo, MS (at least their update servers), can betrusted topropagate routes that are not aggregated/filtered, so as togive themcontrol 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 specificthan the onesthey 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 restoreservice to the rest of the world, and the announcements didn't propogate. Simon
Current thread:
- Re: ISP's who where affected by the misconfiguration: start using IRR and checking your BGP updates (Was: YouTube IP Hijacking), (continued)
- Re: ISP's who where affected by the misconfiguration: start using IRR and checking your BGP updates (Was: YouTube IP Hijacking) Ross Vandegrift (Feb 25)
- Re: ISP's who where affected by the misconfiguration: start using IRR and checking your BGP updates sthaug (Feb 25)
- Re: ISP's who where affected by the misconfiguration: start using IRR and checking your BGP updates Patrick W. Gilmore (Feb 26)
- Re: ISP's who where affected by the misconfiguration: start using IRR and checking your BGP updates (Was: YouTube IP Hijacking) Justin Shore (Feb 24)
- Re: YouTube IP Hijacking Paul Ferguson (Feb 24)
- Re: YouTube IP Hijacking Sena, Rich (Feb 24)
- RE: YouTube IP Hijacking Tomas L. Byrnes (Feb 24)
- Re: YouTube IP Hijacking Simon Lockhart (Feb 24)
- RE: YouTube IP Hijacking Tomas L. Byrnes (Feb 24)
- RE: YouTube IP Hijacking Randy Epstein (Feb 24)
- RE: YouTube IP Hijacking Tomas L. Byrnes (Feb 24)
- Re: YouTube IP Hijacking Patrick W. Gilmore (Feb 24)
- RE: YouTube IP Hijacking Tomas L. Byrnes (Feb 24)
- RE: YouTube IP Hijacking michael.dillon (Feb 25)
- Re: YouTube IP Hijacking Jim Mercer (Feb 25)
- RE: YouTube IP Hijacking michael.dillon (Feb 25)
- Re: YouTube IP Hijacking JC Dill (Feb 26)
- Re: YouTube IP Hijacking Simon Lockhart (Feb 24)
- Re: YouTube IP Hijacking Steven M. Bellovin (Feb 24)
- Re: YouTube IP Hijacking Patrick W. Gilmore (Feb 24)
- Re: YouTube IP Hijacking Sean Donelan (Feb 24)
- Re: YouTube IP Hijacking Steven M. Bellovin (Feb 25)