Re: default routes question or any way to do the rebundant

[Sena, Rich]

Can someone put this in a digest for me? eg

- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Barry Shein [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: nanog@merit.edu nanog@merit.edu
Sent: Fri Mar 21 16:44:39 2008
Subject: Re: default routes question or any way to do the rebundant


On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 4:29 PM, Barry Shein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


  Is this for real?

  Someone asks a harmless question about setting up multiple default
  routes, not about Barack Obama or whether the moon is made of green
  cheese, but about default routes.

  Then 10 people decide to respond that this isn't appropriate for
nanog.

  Then 25 people decide to dispute that.

  Then 50 people are arguing (ok maybe I exaggerate but just a little)
  about it.

  So the person who asked the original question feels bad and
apologizes.

  And 5 people decide to tell her there's nothing to apologize for.

  And 10 people dispute that...and...what next? Oh, right, and next I
  feel an urge to write this idiotic meta-meta-meta-note.

  I think psychologists have a term for this, chaotic instability
  disorder or something like that.

  Maybe what we need are NANOG GREETERS!

  Hello, welcome to Nanog, can we help you find something? Hello,
  welcome to Nanog, can we help you find something?...

Blue light special in slot 5? V6 only STM64's now half price!

personal opinion

I dont think that there's any issue at all to be honest. NANOG isn't
just for the clued.

/personal opinion

Best,

Marty

Re: YouTube IP Hijacking

[Sena, Rich]

Jake Blues mode

I hate Cyber Jihads!

/Jake Blues mode

- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Neil Fenemor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Will Hargrave [EMAIL PROTECTED]; nanog@merit.edu nanog@merit.edu
Sent: Sun Feb 24 16:06:50 2008
Subject: RE: YouTube IP Hijacking


Clearly, they are incensed by youtube content, so what makes anyone
think that they would not be trying to engage in a case of Cyber-Jihad?

I hosted the site that was rated #1 on Google for the Jyllands Posten
(di2.nu) cartoons when it was a current issue, and I STILL get lots of
script kiddie DOS from the Islamic world.

I generally don't assume malice when mere incompetence will suffice,
but
in the case of the Islamic world, they've proved themselves malicious
towards the non-Islamic world often, and violently, enough, that I
don't
believe they deserve that presumption of innocence any more.

In either case, the correct COA is to filter all advertisements with AS
17557 in the path, until they fix the routes they are advertising, and
let us know how they plan on making sure this doesn't happen again.
 

 -Original Message-
 From: Neil Fenemor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2008 1:01 PM
 To: Tomas L. Byrnes
 Cc: Will Hargrave; nanog@merit.edu
 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 On Behalf 
  Of Will Hargrave
  Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2008 12:39 PM
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  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 
 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