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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2008 4:15 PM > To: Tomas L. Byrnes; 'Simon Lockhart' > Cc: 'Michael Smith'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > nanog@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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2008 2:07 PM > > To: Tomas L. Byrnes > > Cc: Michael Smith; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > > nanog@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 > > > > >
