|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical RE: YouTube IP Hijacking
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:[email protected]] > Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2008 1:23 PM > To: [email protected]; Tomas L. Byrnes > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Re: YouTube IP Hijacking > > Exactly... They inadvertently made the details of their > oppression more readily apparent... > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: [email protected] <[email protected]> > To: Tomas L. Byrnes <[email protected]> > Cc: Will Hargrave <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> > 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: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > On Behalf > >> Of Will Hargrave > >> Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2008 12:39 PM > >> To: [email protected] > >> 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 > > >
|