net.terrorism

Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu
Tue Jan 9 15:09:18 UTC 2001


On Tue, 09 Jan 2001 09:12:31 EST, jlewis at lewis.org 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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 211 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20010109/62838146/attachment.sig>


More information about the NANOG mailing list