net.terrorism

Tue Jan 9 19:06:36 UTC 2001

On Tue, 9 Jan 2001, Sabri Berisha wrote:

> 
> On Tue, 9 Jan 2001, William Allen Simpson wrote:
> 
> > Sabri Berisha wrote:
> 
> > > I am concerned. Concerned about people and companies who think they are in
> > > the position to be net.gods and for political reasons destroy the free
> > > character of the internet.
> 
> > I've been involved for over 20 years, and don't remember this "free
> > character".  Perhaps there is a language translation problem?  That
> > also applies to the use of the word "terrorism"?
> 
> "Free" as in everybody decides their own policies. "Terrorism" as in
> forcing your policies on someone elses network.
> 

OK.  You are obviously mistaken about how routing policy works so, lets
give you a little education, free of charge.

Abovenet enforces policy which blocks 194.178.232.55/32.

You are a CUSTOMER of Abovenet, you obtain transit to the prefixes that
pass their particular routing policy.

Customers of YOURS obtain transit to prefixes that pass YOUR policy and
the policies of your transit providers.

If you don't like the particular routing policy of your transit provider,
you are "Free" to find a new provider.  It is just that simple.

> Why do you want me to have read everything you have read? My point is not
> policy based routing or which ICMP message I get. My point is not to
> announce something you won't route.

It's your contention that Abovenet shouldn't announce 194.178.0.0/16 just
because they are NULL routing 194.178.232.55/32 for policy reasons?  You
ARE confused, aren't you?

> 
> If I want to make sure my traffic gets to that host, I can set up a static
> route to our second uplink. But it's not *me* who should be filtering. How
> do I know which other hosts are being announced and blackholed?
> 

Perhaps as a customer, instead of jousting windmills on NANOG, you should
contact a sales engineer at Abovenet and request information on their
routing policy.  It will be much more productive.

---
John Fraizer
EnterZone, Inc