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.

Only 4 Indian ASes are needed to intercept >90% of AS-level paths from all Indian ASes to censored sites; 10 ASes cover ~95% of paths. Fewer than 5,000 edge routers spread across those ASes would suffice for nationwide IP filtering, with ~70% of those routers belonging to just two private ISPs (Bharti Airtel AS9498 and Tata Comm. AS4755).

§4.1, Table 2, Table 3 evaluation

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.

§4.1, §4.4 policy

Eight Indian ASes can collectively intercept 99.14% of AS-level paths connecting all Indian ASes to DNS resolvers, including GoogleDNS and OpenDNS; 4,906 routers across these 8 ASes suffice to launch DNS injection attacks covering the entire country. The same 8 ASes also appear among the 10 key ASes identified for IP filtering.

§4.2 evaluation

India's federated censorship model — each ISP independently enforces government blacklists — produces dramatically inconsistent filtering: Airtel censored only 1 of 50 pornographic sites probed, while MTNL censored 45 of 50; Reliance Jio censored 0 sites across all 540 test URLs. A well-informed user can escape censorship through a judicious choice of ISP.

§3.1, Table 1 evaluation

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

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

Table 2 shows that with 50 decoy ASes, the most powerful practical routing attack on downstream-only systems (rewiring-I) impacts 93% of China's routes (22.4% unreachable, 70% re-routed), compared to only 18.2% total impact from RAD on traditional upstream designs. Table 3 shows that even for Syria, the rewiring-II attack with just 1 downstream-only decoy AS already impacts 81% of routes versus 1.5% for RAD on upstream systems.

2017-nasr-waterfall §4.2.1, Table 2, Table 3 bgp-hijack

BGP simulation shows that a censor's source-block attack against 100 downstream-only decoy ASes disconnects 23% of Chinese Internet destinations, versus only 8% when applying the standard RAD attack against 100 upstream decoy ASes — imposing nearly 3× more unreachability collateral damage on the censor for the same decoy count.

2017-nasr-waterfall §4.1.1, Figure 3 bgp-hijack