YouTube IP Hijacking

Mon Feb 25 06:22:58 UTC 2008

On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 8:42 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore <patrick at ianai.net> 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?

m.root-servers.net
i.root-servers.net
www.ripe.net
www.apnic.net

oops!

>  > 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 :(

-Chris