[102683] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: YouTube IP Hijacking
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Tomas L. Byrnes)
Sun Feb 24 19:58:01 2008
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 16:36:32 -0800
In-Reply-To: <064f01c87743$853953a0$2801a8c0@D88CFA77634F40F>
From: "Tomas L. Byrnes" <tomb@byrneit.net>
To: "Randy Epstein" <repstein@chello.at>, "Simon Lockhart" <simon@slimey.org>
Cc: "Michael Smith" <msmith@internap.com>, <neil.fenemor@fx.net.nz>,
<will@harg.net>, <nanog@merit.edu>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
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.=20
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Randy Epstein [mailto:repstein@chello.at]=20
> 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;=20
> nanog@merit.edu
> Subject: RE: YouTube IP Hijacking
>=20
> Tomas L. Byrnes wrote:
>=20
> > Perhaps certain ASes that are considered "high priority",=20
> like Google,=20
> > YouTube, Yahoo, MS (at least their update servers), can be=20
> trusted to=20
> > propagate routes that are not aggregated/filtered, so as to=20
> give them=20
> > control over their reachability and immunity to longer-prefix=20
> > hijacking (especially problematic with things like MS update sites).
>=20
> Not to stir up a huge debate here, but if I were a day=20
> trader, I could live without YouTube for a day, but not=20
> e*trade or Ameritrade as it would be my livelihood. If I=20
> were an eBay seller, why would I care about YouTube? You get=20
> the idea. What makes Google, YouTube, Yahoo, MS, etc more=20
> important? =20
>=20
> More importantly, why is PCCW not prefix filtering their downstreams?
> Certainly AS17557 cannot be trusted without a filter.
>=20
> Randy
>=20
> > -----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;=20
> > nanog@merit.edu
> > Subject: Re: YouTube IP Hijacking
> >=20
> > On Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 01:49:00PM -0800, Tomas L. Byrnes wrote:
> > > Which means that, by advertising routes more specific=20
> than the ones=20
> > > they are poisoning, it may well be possible to restore universal=20
> > > connectivity to YouTube.
> >=20
> > Well, if you can get them in there.... Youtube tried that,=20
> to restore=20
> > service to the rest of the world, and the announcements didn't=20
> > propogate.
> >=20
> > Simon
> >=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
