YouTube IP Hijacking

Mon Feb 25 01:42:51 UTC 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.

-- 
TTFN,
patrick

> 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:repstein at chello.at]
>> Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2008 4:15 PM
>> To: Tomas L. Byrnes; 'Simon Lockhart'
>> Cc: 'Michael Smith'; neil.fenemor at fx.net.nz; will at harg.net;
>> nanog at merit.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:simon at slimey.org]
>>> Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2008 2:07 PM
>>> To: Tomas L. Byrnes
>>> Cc: Michael Smith; neil.fenemor at fx.net.nz; will at harg.net;
>>> nanog at merit.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
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>