North American Network Operators Group

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

Re: YouTube IP Hijacking

  • From: Christopher Morrow
  • Date: Mon Feb 25 01:49:52 2008
  • Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; bh=/tU8XxeAhHvRGvf2bNFvQ6vNSXhznu6vGdhAU6mwncg=; b=lP3sZjzf4G+DqJ5xHBF4oXBxblUMS38ep4lRjF3YtIhbjY+q03QbwqkUFfuHzUAIHYnIUqJ1vKE24aORPjlDBhzPyZODcRSNLuMHiwfNkBAA/3I8TMwneRA7qhHvY8RcXf9vQx0XvJZg1K5x/0dlMQo2wRNelpC1fNzUSA0/9Vw=
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=Iobz7NlNfrGBpF0rEXFoLs2jVYMxswRvzUsS4HXcWDrx/qO4qsfNeAKaXr7hMpSaVg2i9cz7EKUwwvKptQJnIlo8vFvmOm0Y2sknMiDA3Jr7ib0R5j7e9PGchVEBNwQF5GNG3H/K+fasIum93co1b+UZxmTYtXoWXCYrU9mzHBE=

On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 8:42 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore <[email protected]> wrote:

>  > 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.

except that even the 'good guys' make mistakes. Belt + suspenders
please... is it really that hard for a network service provider to
have a prefix-list on their customer bgp sessions?? L3 does it, ATT
does it, Sprint does it, as do UUNET/vzb, NTT, GlobalCrossing ...
seriously, it's not that hard.

>  > 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.

no, unless they had some recourse (SFP agreement?) for such
behaviours... clearly said agreement wasn't in place so the PCCW folks
REALLY should have had some belt+suspenders approach in place.

As an aside, I'm against the 'golden prefixes' idea, because it
quickly devolves into a pay-for-play game where in the end everyone
pays a disproportionate amount :(