Re: [At-Large] Pakistan YouTube Block affected wider Internet
On 04:44 27/02/2008, Franck Martin said:
Is this problem not fixed if people would follow BCP38?
Dear Frank, you illustrate the need of an audible dialog between users and techies: what is a BCP and what is BCP38 for us @large people. Moreover, if you do not provide a link.
Also, seems to me a storm in a tea cup, wikipedia runs on the same principles: with enough oversight the problem gets fixed quickly. Also BGP is on its way out, so may be let's concentrate on the new routing protocol?
Exactly. However, what is this new routing protocol as explained to the @large whose own business and duties to ICANN will depend on?
And IETF is open to all, and ISOC offers fellowship for new comers to the IETF process, and you don't need to be present at the IETF meetings to be efficient, just subscribe to the various IETF mailing lists.
Both of us, as individuals, are good dedicated demonstrations of the difficulty for @large to understand and be understood by IETF and IETF by @large. Please recall, I proposed ccTLDs and IETF to enter an MoU, and Brian Carpenter to come and introduce the IETF vision to the ICANN ccTLD meeting in Luxembourg. It was OK on the ccTLD side, but IETF and IAB chairs declined. Interfacing is not to say "hello! you are welcome to join and be trained". There are probably 150 mailing lists and 5000+ RFCs to start perusing and then 500 to read to become abreast of what an @large technical rep really has to know and translate in @large readable language, underlining the constencies and lack of consistency - what calls for a technical competence the IAB has not (or it would produce it). It is a more than full time job. + knowing ICANN. + knowing the IGF (IETF refused to participate to.) + knowing the positions of a few IETF people pretenting the IETF is involved in IGF (Vint, Klensin, Falström). Look, only .CN, .FR and recently .GR participate to the IETF parallel IDNA revision. IETF and ICANN have a relational problem with the world. To listen and to speak to the "Global Internet Community" while they were used to relate with the "Internet Community". With some difficulty ICANN starts doing it through the ALAC. IETF is still at the stage they want to curb us, and we sometimes have to oppose. If we want to have a smooth integration of ICANN and IETF (they are bundled together via the IANA) within the IGF + WSIS process + real Internet world of today, we need to help both sides. Otherwise we both perfectly know what is going to happen : the regalianisation of the Internet, which is an "enhanced cooperation" without the civil society, partly the private sector, the regalian domain, under the control of the UN international entities. Back to 1980 instead of applying the Tunis agreement [because the lack of IETF participation to the WSIS process makes it lame - even if the ICANN participation has prevented an Internet split]. One way to proceed could be the creation of an ALAC Internet Architecture and Operations WG which would be briefed by the IETF, IAB Chairs and AD and would inform/advise/concert with the IAB/IESG on the @large positions. Such a WG would propose the BoD, with you and Thomas Narten's help the best ways to interface "the legacy core" and the "emerging world digital ecosystem" and its multitechnology/multilingual/multistakeholders convergence. jfc
On 27/02/2008, JFC Morfin <<mailto:jefsey@jefsey.com>jefsey@jefsey.com> wrote: Dear all, Thank you, Jean Armour to remind this situation. IMHO this kind of issue shows the need for the ALAC to liaise with, or to have @large representatives at the IETF, and to exercise QA advice and control on Internet protocols, solutions and architecture, the same as it to be an ICANN advisor. The best way for this would be through a formal MoU with the IETF.
We have to understand that one way or another the IGF/WSIS is going to do this too (possibly through a WSIS Technical Forum). Then the ALAC will be able to fully play its role of ICANN community interface with the Members of the IGF/Enhanced Cooperation. At that time it would very good for the ALAC credibility to show some results or at least established debate.
The point you do today, seems to be also a good reasons for ALAC to get informed/investigate about the ROAP IETF/IAB issue (ROuting and Adressing Problem) leading to a possible disruption of the routing due to IPv6 management. On a more general perspective I would suggest that ALAC could start from the US cyberspace review and consider the status of the US cyberspace strategy which are probably the most active, but probably late. The reference is <http://white-house.giv/pcipb>http://white-house.giv/pcipb. BGP is one of the priorities assigned by this strategy devised after 9/11. It was more than 5 years ago. jfc
At 03:39 27/02/2008, Jean Armour Polly wrote:
Over the weekend, the Pakistan Telecom Authority ordered Pakistan's ISPs to block YouTube. The ISPs shared BGP (Border gateway protocol) data, which advertised routes to nowhere for YouTube.
But, the routes were "accidentally" shared with a company in Hong Kong. Because the routes were very concise, and because no one bothered to see if they were accurate, routers all over accepted the routes as the best path to YouTube.
The following article gives more information, including the suggestion that secure BGP be adopted. <http://www.macworld.com/article/132256/2008/02/networking.html>http://www.macworld.com/article/132256/2008/02/networking.html
provides more information, including this quote: "Misrouting occurs every year or so among the world's Internet carriers, usually as a result of typos or other errors, Underwood said. In a more severe example, a Turkish telecom provider in 2004 started advertising that it was the best route to all of the Internet, causing widespread outages for many Web sites over several hours.
"Nobody ran any viruses or worms or malicious code. This is just the way the Internet works. And it's not very secure or reliable," Underwood said, adding that there is no real solution to the problem on the table.
While most route hijacking is unintentional, some Yahoo networks were apparently taken over a few years ago to distribute spam. "To be honest, there's not a single thing preventing this from happening to E-Trade, or Bank of America, or the FBI, or the White House, or the Clinton campaign," Underwood said. "I think it's a useful moment for people to decide just how important it is that we fix problems like this."
How stable is the Internet, anyway? Perhaps ALAC would like to discuss.
Jean Armour Polly _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: <http://www.alac.icann.org/>http://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: <http://www.icannalac.org/>http://www.icannalac.org
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: <http://www.alac.icann.org>http://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: <http://www.icannalac.org>http://www.icannalac.org
-- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Franck Martin <mailto:franck.martin@gmail.com>franck.martin@gmail.com http://www.peachymango.org/ "Toute connaissance est une réponse à une question" G. Bachelard
participants (1)
-
JFC Morfin