North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: YouTube IP Hijacking

  • From: Matsuzaki Yoshinobu
  • Date: Mon Feb 25 04:42:44 2008
  • Dkim-signature: v=1;a=rsa-sha256;c=relaxed/simple;d=iij.ad.jp;h=Date: Message-Id:To:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:References:Mime-Version:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding;[email protected];s=omgo0;t=1203931029;x=1205140629; bh=keKP3xTmKjCqHwP05klM441qrGpkEhXQicoUnHw8U2M=;b=dG3u6bPiWdIAhve6vI4jl1+K2sm Xf2pfAu0fqhrLcEcfpOt0OG+tAGVJbyN2XN8v9GwiQ9j64haLA7Iun38ts7fuLO+jClGcxbv2NzCk vb7T0+V38PXLO2nyts4WL9SHrKWmnYtHMaa9OxCD1gKEolG2tFLWpS84gaIwtAK73bc=;
"Patrick W. Gilmore" <[email protected]> wrote
> On Feb 25, 2008, at 2:27 AM, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
> > At 07:15 PM 24-02-08 -0500, Randy Epstein wrote:
> >
> >> More importantly, why is PCCW not prefix filtering their downstreams?
> >
> > Why?
> >
> > - Lack of clue
> > - Couldn't care less
> > - No revenue
> >
> > Take your pick - or add your own reason.  PCCW is not alone.  They  
> > just happen to be the latest in a long line of ISPs that follow the  
> > same rules - their own.
> 
> All good, er, bad reasons.  Fixing the "filter your downstreams"  
> problem is very important.  It would also solve 90-something percent  
> of the problems mentioned in this thread.  E.g. as7007. :)

I am in the APRICOT meeting in Taipei now, and met a guy from
PCCW/AS3491.  I have showed him this thread, and have suggested
1) validating prefixes from downstreams before accept, and 
2) setting an inbound prefix-filter to their downstreams.

regards,
-----
Matsuzaki Yoshinobu <[email protected]>
 - IIJ/AS2497  INOC-DBA: 2497*629