On Feb 29, 2008, at 11:49 AM, David Ulevitch wrote:
Of course... In fact, wouldn't it even providers benefit from having
some logic that says "don't ever accept a more specific of a
customer-announced prefix?"
Sure, that'd suck less, I guess, although then you have to punch
holes for mul
Danny McPherson wrote:
On Feb 29, 2008, at 7:46 AM, David Ulevitch wrote:
It's worth noting that from where I sit, it appears as though none of
Youtube's transit providers accepted this announcement. Only their
peers.
A simple artifact of shortest AS path route selection.
Well, we (yout
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 06:46:15AM -0800, David Ulevitch wrote:
> The point is -- Restrictive customer filtering can also bite you in the
> butt. Trying to require your providers to do a "ge 19 le 25" (or
> whatever your largest supernet is), rather than filters for specific
> prefix sizes see
On Feb 29, 2008, at 7:46 AM, David Ulevitch wrote:
The report states:
Sunday, 24 February 2008, 20:07 (UTC): AS36561 (YouTube) starts
announcing 208.65.153.0/24. With two identical prefixes in the
routing system, BGP policy rules, such as preferring the shortest
AS path, determine whi
The report states:
Sunday, 24 February 2008, 20:07 (UTC): AS36561 (YouTube) starts announcing 208.65.153.0/24. With two identical prefixes in the routing system, BGP policy rules, such as preferring the shortest AS path, determine which route is chosen. This means that AS17557 (Pakistan Telecom
for those interested in the matter
tom
Dear Colleagues,
As you may be aware from recent news reports, traffic to the youtube.com
website was 'hijacked' on a global scale on Sunday, 24 February 2008. The
incident was a result of the unauthorised announcement of the prefix
208.65.153.0/24
