The feasibility of the RAD attack scales sharply with the censor's network connectivity. Strategic placement of decoys in just 1% of ASes disconnects China from 18% of Internet destinations, Venezuela from 54%, and Syria from 87%. Countries with fewer controlled ASes and ring ASes have dramatically less routing flexibility and are far more vulnerable to even small decoy deployments.

Under the RAD attack a large fraction of China's routes to Internet destinations shift to non-valley-free (NVF) paths, which impose direct monetary costs because ASes must pay for traffic they would normally earn revenue transiting. Among valley-free paths that survive, 6%–21% switch to less-preferred (more expensive) routes, 20%–43% become longer, and average path length increases by 1.12×–1.40× depending on placement strategy.

§VII-B, §VII-C evaluation

Even under the most censor-favorable (random-no-ring-1) decoy placement, launching the RAD attack increases average Internet route latency from China by over 4×; under strategic placements the average latency increase factor reaches 8×. These increases arise because RBGP is forced onto lower-capacity, less-popular transit ASes even when path hop-count is unchanged.

§VII-C, §I evaluation

The RAD attack requires converting a large number of Chinese edge ASes into transit ASes: placing decoys in 2% of global ASes (random-no-ring-1, China-World scenario) forces 59 edge ASes to become transit ASes, nearly doubling China's 30 existing transit ASes. One Chinese transit AS must carry approximately 122× its normal load; the abstract reports a peak of 2,800× in a more aggressive scenario, a threshold the paper considers operationally infeasible.

§VII-D evaluation

The RAD paper's random decoy placement is heavily biased in favor of the censor: 86.2% of all Internet ASes are edge ASes with customer cone size 1, so random selection rarely hits transit ASes. Replacing random with sorted-no-ring placement (decoys chosen from ASes that appear most on adversary BGP routes) disconnects China from 30% of Internet destinations using only 2% decoy coverage, versus the 4% disconnection reported in the original RAD paper.

§V, §VII-A defense

Article 19 documents that Iran's National Information Network (NIN / SHOMA) was designed with explicit reference to China's Great Firewall as a model, with institutional mirroring: Iran's Supreme Council of Cyberspace parallels China's Cyberspace Administration of China, and both governments share a "cyber sovereignty" doctrine used to justify domestic content controls and cross-border technology transfer. The report frames Iran's filtering infrastructure as deliberately architected to replicate GFW capabilities, not as an independently developed system.

2026-article19-tightening-the-net §2, §3 dpisni-blockingdns-poisoningip-blockingbgp-hijackthrottling

On March 28, 2022, Russian ISP RTComm (AS8342) hijacked Twitter's IPv4 prefix 104.244.42.0/24 for approximately 45 minutes (12:05–12:50 UTC) and announced it to the global Internet as a blocking measure. The hijack was blunted because Twitter had preemptively registered RPKI route origin authorizations (ROAs) for its prefixes, causing RPKI-validating ASes worldwide to reject the hijacked route.

2023-ramesh-network §4.3 bgp-hijackasn-blackholing

For China (a highly connected, routing-capable adversary), the gossip protocol combined with any symmetric decoy routing design requires only 5 heavyweight downstream stations plus 880 lightweight upstream gossip stations — versus 880 heavyweight stations for purely symmetric designs. Five downstream stations alone impact 78% of routes from Chinese users, while a single downstream station already covers nearly 25% of traffic.

2018-bocovich-secure Table 2 / §3.2 bgp-hijack

Any one of five Indian ASes — each needing control of only its BGP-speaking routers — can individually censor traffic for all ~896 Indian ASes via IP prefix hijacking. For example, AS4755 (Tata Comm.) fake advertisements can impact 955 ASes total (896 Indian + 41 foreign); AS9730 (Bharti Telesonic) requires as few as 7 edge routers to execute such an attack.

2017-gosain-mending §4.3, Table 4 bgp-hijack

If India deployed centralized filtering at its key ASes, approximately 121,931 foreign-origin paths (1.15% of all Internet paths to censored sites worldwide) that transit Indian ASes would experience collateral blocking, affecting non-Indian users in Finland, Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaysia, the US, and elsewhere who have no connection to Indian censorship law.

2017-gosain-mending §4.1, §4.4 ip-blockingbgp-hijack

Through Internet-scale BGP simulation against China, downstream-only decoy routing (Waterfall) with a single decoy AS provides equivalent resistance to routing attacks as a traditional upstream decoy system (e.g., Telex) with 53 decoy ASes. This efficiency gain arises because censoring ISPs can selectively re-route upstream traffic per destination but must re-route all or none of downstream traffic through each provider AS, making downstream-only routing far more expensive to evade.

2017-nasr-waterfall §4.1.1 bgp-hijack