|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: net.terrorism
On Tue, 09 Jan 2001 09:12:31 EST, [email protected] said: > 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. OK.. I'll bite. Who's originally announcing the route? Is the route in question the original announcement for the ORBS site, which above.net is then passing along because it's a pain to punch a hole in a /16, but above.net then blackholes the actual traffic internal to their net? Or is the route in question a blackhole route announced by somebody else to cause routing of traffic to a blackhole? If it's the first, then it's time for procmail filters - I disagree with above.net's policy, but as long as they are up-front about it, I'll not have a religious war about it (btw - is above.net blackholing anybody else officially, and is there an on-line list of what's being blackholed?). As has been pointed out, you can always change providers or play routing games if you multi-home - but it would make it a lot easier if your providers tell you "We blackhole X Y and Z, find alternate routes yourself" so you can avoid trouble-shooting a non-problem. If it's the second, then words escape me. Although black-hole routes are an accepted part of doing business (witness Vixies's RBL BGP4 feed), they shouldn't be passed along to non-consenting peers. -- Valdis Kletnieks Operating Systems Analyst Virginia Tech Attachment:
pgp00011.pgp
|