net.terrorism

Tue Jan 9 12:43:50 UTC 2001

On Tue, 9 Jan 2001, Paul A Vixie wrote:

(you reply fast ;)

> > After this mail, we contacted Above.net again. They basically told us it
> > was for our own protection
>
> no.

Yes, on the phone actually by the women who contacted you in the first
place...

> >                            because that traffic from that host does not
> > comply to their AUP.
>
> yes.

I can live with that. But stop announcing it...

> >                        We specifically told them we really don't mind them
> > blackholing that host but *announcing* a route for it. So far no response.
>
> you expect abovenet to cut uunet's /16 into pieces so as to avoid sending to
> its customers the parts which violate abovenet's acceptable use guidelines?
> even if this were a scalable approach (considering the number of /16's which
> have violating /32's inside them, or will in the future), it's something i'd
> expect the owner of the /16 to take issue with.

What I would expect is that you would choose between two things:

1. you blackhole but do NOT announce those netblocks;
2. you annonce AND deliver traffic to every host in it;

Don't you agree that announcing means delivering traffic? Especially for
customers.

> why are we discussing this on nanog?

Because Above.net seems violates the first thing needed in
internetworking: trust. If you tell me you will deliver traffic to $blah,
I think I may expect you to do so. That's my whole point. Nullroute as
much as you want but don't announce it on your border routers...

-- 
/*  Sabri Berisha, non-interesting network dude.
 *
 *  CCNA, BOFH, Systems admin Linux/FreeBSD
 */