Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations

Vadim Antonov avg at sprint.net
Sat Jan 27 07:15:03 UTC 1996

Forrest W. Christian <forrestc at imach.com> wrote:

>Is there some other method which would be as effective to destroy a
>specific net's connectivity to the majority of the net?  A few come to
>mind right now:

>        1)      ip route <luser's address & mask> null0

Deliberate injection of bogus routes is the reason sufficient
to disconnect from the provider who's doing that completely.
*No* serious ISP will ever want to unleash the routing wars.

>        2)      ip filtering:

>                - Probably uses more CPU than #1, but doesn't screw
>                  with the routing tables.

You may want to ask Sean to send you a copy of SL-MAE-E's configuration.
There already are *huge* filter lists, just to maintain sanity of

>I doubt you're going to need to add many filters :)

Heh. Never underestimate the laziness (overworkiness, underpaidness,
or just plain cluelessness) of netadmins.

Seriously, there are people which still believe that CIDR is a

>As far as who will run the programs to check for this, I'm sure that a
>suitable home for the tools necessary could be found.

It is not the tools, it is the politics.  Getting rid of nukes
completely is a nice goal.  Does anybody seriously think it can
be done today?  Not until we see the last of Kings and Presidents
(not mentioning Senators and other Servants of the people).

A net.politzai is a very unrewarding role, potentially leading
to real lawsuits.  Passive filtering with well-announced policy
at least gives no food for lawyers.  Sprint's policies are
a result of extensive consultations between engineering, marketing
and legal people (and activist customers), and is a way for Sprint
to protect its own network from the routing collapse.

Not speaking for Sprint.

More information about the NANOG mailing list