I've had Newbie router admins take out my private routes before on a corporate WAN, but I've not seen an entire country take out an entire website like this. Their actions not only blocked themselves from accessing YouTube, but the entire world.
An action like this needs to be severely punished and it should never be tolerated by the world. I think the appropriate action is to block ALL backbones to Pakistan until the Government pays a fine, apologize for poisoning the BGP tables, and promise never to do it again. If you want to be a part of the Internet, you need to behave.
4:30 PM Eastern (US).
The telecom company that carries most of Pakistan’s traffic, PCCW, has found it necessary to shut Pakistan off from the Internet while they filter out the malicious routes that a Pakistani ISP, PieNet, announced earlier today. Evidently PieNet took this step to enforce a decree from the Pakistani government that ISP’s must block access to YouTube because it was a source of blasphemous content.
I cannot let the irony pass with out commenting. A religious state, Pakistan, identifies a content provider, YouTube, as the source of blasphemous, seditious content and orders, King Canute style, that the Internet tides be stopped. A zealous ISP ignorantly decides the best way to comply with the decree is to re-route all of YouTube’s IP addresses to whatever site they thought was more appropriate. The first repercussion was that YouTube disappeared from the Internet for almost an hour. I suspect the second repercussion was that Pakistan’s Internet access crawled to a halt as all of a sudden they were handling IP requests for one of the busiest sites in the world. As of this writing YouTube has announced more granular routes so that at least in the US they supercede the routes announced by PieNet. The rest of the world is still struggling. So, while working on a fix that will filter out the spurious route announcements, PCCW has found it necessary to shut down Pakistan’s Internet access. The leadership of Pakistan just created a massive Denial of Service on their own country.
I could say: “be careful what you wish for” to those elements that object to free and open access to information and expression of ideas. But to put it in terms they might understand better: Do not anger the Internet gods or you will suffer their wrath!
Update: This blog points out that the “blasphemous content” claim may be a red herring. There may be more political motivations behind it.
Update: Stiennon’s blog has moved to here.
