North American Network Operators Group

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

Re: YouTube IP Hijacking

  • From: Patrick W. Gilmore
  • Date: Sun Feb 24 20:48:09 2008

On Feb 24, 2008, at 7:36 PM, Tomas L. Byrnes wrote:

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.

That is a silly requirement.

(I am sorry, I tried hard to find a nicer way to say this, but I really feel strongly about this.)

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.

This is also a bit strange. Do your users never attach to a host outside the USofA?

3: Considered highly competent technically.

Here we agree.

4: With state of the art security and operations.

I think we agree, but I wouldn't have said it like that.


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.


-----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