North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: net.terrorism
> After this mail, we contacted Above.net again. They basically told us it > was for our own protection no. > because that traffic from that host does not > comply to their AUP. yes. > We specifically told them we really don't mind them > blackholing that host but *announcing* a route for it. So far no response. you expect abovenet to cut uunet's /16 into pieces so as to avoid sending to its customers the parts which violate abovenet's acceptable use guidelines? even if this were a scalable approach (considering the number of /16's which have violating /32's inside them, or will in the future), it's something i'd expect the owner of the /16 to take issue with. why are we discussing this on nanog? Paul Vixie <[email protected]> CTO and SVP, MFN (NASDAQ: MFNX)
|