Better support for content providers
Opened this issue · 1 comments
The current list includes transit providers, ISPs, and "cloud" providers. There are two problems that content providers and CDNs may be facing with this categorization:
- Content providers are now marked as type "cloud". That may be inaccurate in many cases. It may just so happen that Amazon-the-bookstore/AWS and YouTube/Google Cloud are on the same network infrastructure, but this would not be the case for every content provider out there.
- Ordering by the Caida ASN rank make little sense for content providers (including Cloudflare?). Caida says after all "ASes and Orgs are ranked by their customer cone size, which is the number of their direct and indirect customers. Note: We do not have data to rank ASes (ISPs) by traffic, revenue, users, or any other non-topological metric.". Content providers would typically have no "customers" in that sense and wouldn't be ranked high, no matter how popular they are.
Rationale: Wikipedia (aka the Wikimedia Foundation, AS14907) has been both signing and filtering across all sessions for a couple of months now (with no fallbacks), i.e. it would be marked as "safe" in your ranking. We're a popular website, typically in the top-5 to top-20 of websites (by e.g. Alexa, comScore etc. - exact ranking depends on the list). I think RPKI invalid networks being cut off from Wikipedia may increase confidence for ISPs wishing to enable filtering but fearing they'd lose traffic if they do so.
Therefore I think it would be beneficial for your project for us to be included on the list. However, being marked as a "cloud" provider feels odd, and being ranked by our Caida rank (8716) would probably place us at either below your cut-off point, or at at at the very bottom of your list :)
Thank you for your efforts and for trying to make the web safer!