Not if the hijackers have advertised a /24. Anything you advertise more specific than /24 will be lost on many networks' filters. -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of Tomas L. Byrnes Sent: Monday, 25 February 2008 8:49 AM To: Michael Smith; neil.fenemor@fx.net.nz Cc: will@harg.net; nanog@merit.edu Subject: RE: YouTube IP Hijacking 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.
-----Original Message----- From: Michael Smith [mailto:msmith@internap.com] Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2008 1:23 PM To: neil.fenemor@fx.net.nz; Tomas L. Byrnes Cc: will@harg.net; nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: YouTube IP Hijacking
Exactly... They inadvertently made the details of their oppression more readily apparent...
----- Original Message ----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu <owner-nanog@merit.edu> To: Tomas L. Byrnes <tomb@byrneit.net> Cc: Will Hargrave <will@harg.net>; nanog@merit.edu <nanog@merit.edu> Sent: Sun Feb 24 16:00:35 2008 Subject: Re: YouTube IP Hijacking
While they are deliberately blocking Youtube nationally, I suspect the wider issue has no malice, and is a case of poorly constructed/ implemented outbound policies on their part, and poorly constructed/ implemented inbound polices on their upstreams part.
On 25/02/2008, at 9:49 AM, Tomas L. Byrnes wrote:
Pakistan is deliberately blocking Youtube.
http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/02/24/1628213
Maybe we should all block Pakistan.
-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]
Of Will Hargrave Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2008 12:39 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: YouTube IP Hijacking
Sargun Dhillon wrote:
So, it seems that youtube's ip block has been hijacked by a more specific prefix being advertised. This is a case of IP hijacking, not case of DNS poisoning, youtube engineers doing something stupid, etc. For people that don't know. The router will try to get the most specific prefix. This is by design, not by accident.
You are making the assumption of malice when the more
On Behalf likely cause is
one of accident on the part of probably stressed NOC staff at 17557.
They probably have that /24 going to a gateway walled garden box which replies with a site saying 'we have banned this', and that /24 route is leaking outside of their AS via PCCW due to dodgy filters/communities.
Will
Neil Fenemor FX Networks