North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: blocking AS30060

  • From: Will Yardley
  • Date: Tue Sep 16 13:43:43 2003

On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 01:04:18PM -0400, William Allen Simpson wrote:
> Mark Vevers wrote:
> > On Tuesday 16 Sep 2003 6:41 am, John Brown wrote:

> > > we've burned a AS for this, ICK

> > Yup - and 2 /24's ....
> > 
> > #show ip bgp regexp _30060$
> >    Network          Next Hop            Metric LocPrf Weight Path
> > *>i12.158.80.0/24   xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx         305    100      0 1239 7018 26134
> >  30060 ? *>i64.94.110.0/24   xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx       305    100      0 1239
> >  7018 26134 30060 ?

> > > based on the ASNAME, its seems a nice little route-map
> > > /dev/null will be real easy.  As long as they keep prefixs
> > > used in this really dumb idea for this idea.

> > If you have a full table (i.e. no default) just drop inbound routes with a
> > AS path _30060$

> Are there any adverse side effects, that anybody can think of?

One is that any mail destined for this host would probably sit in the
queue for the maximum queue lifetime, generally about 4 days, before
bouncing as undeliverable, rather than either being rejected
immediately.

One wonders why they didn't at LEAST set an MX of '.' for the wildcard
record (this is how you're supposed to indicate that a domain does not
receive mail if it has an active A record).

This really is a *horrible* idea, and I hope that many horrible,
painful, and unprintable things happen to those responsible for coming
up with / implementing this idea. At the least, I hope that ICANN stops
this in the very short term.

-- 
"Since when is skepticism un-American?
Dissent's not treason but they talk like it's the same..."
(Sleater-Kinney - "Combat Rock")