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:simonslimey.org] 
> Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2008 2:07 PM
> To: Tomas L. Byrnes
> Cc: Michael Smith; neil.fenemorfx.net.nz; willharg.net;

> nanogmerit.edu
> 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
> 

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.

-Hank

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:repsteinchello.at] 
> Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2008 4:15 PM
> To: Tomas L. Byrnes; 'Simon Lockhart'
> Cc: 'Michael Smith'; neil.fenemorfx.net.nz; willharg.net;

> nanogmerit.edu
> 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:simonslimey.org]
> > Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2008 2:07 PM
> > To: Tomas L. Byrnes
> > Cc: Michael Smith; neil.fenemorfx.net.nz; willharg.net; 
> > nanogmerit.edu
> > 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
> > 
> 
> 
>