|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: net.terrorism
On Tue, 9 Jan 2001, Paul A Vixie wrote: (you reply fast ;) > > After this mail, we contacted Above.net again. They basically told us it > > was for our own protection > > no. Yes, on the phone actually by the women who contacted you in the first place... > > because that traffic from that host does not > > comply to their AUP. > > yes. I can live with that. But stop announcing it... > > 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. What I would expect is that you would choose between two things: 1. you blackhole but do NOT announce those netblocks; 2. you annonce AND deliver traffic to every host in it; Don't you agree that announcing means delivering traffic? Especially for customers. > why are we discussing this on nanog? Because Above.net seems violates the first thing needed in internetworking: trust. If you tell me you will deliver traffic to $blah, I think I may expect you to do so. That's my whole point. Nullroute as much as you want but don't announce it on your border routers... -- /* Sabri Berisha, non-interesting network dude. * * CCNA, BOFH, Systems admin Linux/FreeBSD */
|