North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: net.terrorism
On Tue, Jan 09, 2001, Sabri Berisha wrote: > > (relaytest.orbs.vuurwerk.nl), then you need a private connection to > > that specific site, just as many academic sites test unstable network > > software. Expensive, but shouldn't be too bad considering that both of > > you are in the Netherlands.... > > If I want to make sure my traffic gets to that host, I can set up a static > route to our second uplink. But it's not *me* who should be filtering. How > do I know which other hosts are being announced and blackholed? I was just about to say the same thing. I don't quite think of it as terrorism, I just think its not nice for someone to decide part of a net block they're passing the announcements for is being selectively filtered inside their own network. the host in question isn't even an above.net client - its a uunet client. If you have a problem with it, drop announcing the /16 to customers. When customers complain about unreachability to a site, tell them that uunet (note *uunet*, not vuurwerk) are breaking their AUP and they should complain to uunet. You're still 'protecting' your customers. I'd rather get partial announcements than traffic-filtered announcements. That way, my other network pipes (which hopefully have a path without above.net in it to vuurwerk) will take over. above.net are happy. vuurwerk is happy. life is good. no bitching or extra configuration. (oh, and note: this opinion has nothing to do with my employer, interpersonal relationships or my opinion of orbs. You might be surprised how unrelated it is.) Adrian -- Adrian Chadd "Sex Change: a simple job of inside <[email protected]> to outside plumbing." - Some random movie
|