North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

RE: YouTube IP Hijacking

  • From: Tomas L. Byrnes
  • Date: Sun Feb 24 19:59:25 2008

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:[email protected]] 
> Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2008 4:15 PM
> To: Tomas L. Byrnes; 'Simon Lockhart'
> Cc: 'Michael Smith'; [email protected]; [email protected]; 
> [email protected]
> 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 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:[email protected]]
> > Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2008 2:07 PM
> > To: Tomas L. Byrnes
> > Cc: Michael Smith; [email protected]; [email protected]; 
> > [email protected]
> > 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
> > 
> 
> 
>