Thanks Udhay. The article was extremely helpful for those of us coming to the matter from a non-engineering perspective.
Quick question. The article said: "YouTube took countermeasures within minutes, first trying to reclaim its network by narrowing its 1,024 broadcast to 256 addresses. Eleven minutes later, YouTube added an even more specific additional broadcast claiming just 64 addresses--which, under the Border Gateway Protocol, is more specific and therefore should overrule the Pakistani one. Over two hours after the initial false broadcast, Pakistan Telecom finally stopped." Why does shrinking the number of addresses create 'priority' as far as the BGP is concerned? Is there some merit to fewer addresses, as opposed to more? On a side note -- I'm totally curious if there's any legal implication for parties that are, as you all have indicated, lax in their enforcement of net standards? I mean, for one site, I can see it being as big of a deal, but what about the earlier example cited in the news.com piece about Turkey pretending to be the entire internet? That smacks of negligence to me. C On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 1:18 AM, Udhay Shankar N <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Gautam John wrote: [ on 09:58 AM 2/26/2008 ] > > > > http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080225-insecure-routing-redirects-youtube-to-pakistan.html > > > >What the heck does this stuff mean? It escaped? So anyone can 'escape' > >routing information to shut down the 'tubes? > > In essence, yes. Sometimes. This piece may be of help: > > http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9878655-7.html?tag=nl.e498 > > Udhay > > -- > ((Udhay Shankar N)) ((udhay @ pobox.com)) ((www.digeratus.com)) > > >
