|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: net.terrorism
On Tue, 9 Jan 2001 [email protected] wrote: > On Tue, 9 Jan 2001, Sabri Berisha wrote: > > > We pay Abovenet to send traffic, not to throw it away. > > And if you know they can't/won't send traffic to certain destinations, you > can static route those destinations to another carrier. That's my point. How do I know? Do they provide a static listing with host they blackhole? Not that I know of. I only see *some* of my traffic ending up in /dev/null... > > > 1) filter the route from abovenet > > > > They should not be announcing in the first place. > > They're not really announcing...they're propogating a route someone else > announced. As Vixie said, it's highly impractical to carve up a /16 > (especially if it's not their space) just to avoid propogating a route for > a host they don't want to carry traffic to. If they are able to route the host to /dev/null, they will probably be able to filter that advertisement out... > And you're saying Above should look the other way while ORBS abuses their > network? No. Why do we keep getting the ORBS discussion in this? This is about announcing and nullrouting, not mailrelaytesting. > I think it's just about procmail time if this thread continues. That's also a nullroute ;) -- /* Sabri Berisha, non-interesting network dude. * * CCNA, BOFH, Systems admin Linux/FreeBSD */
|