Unwanted Traffic Removal Service (UTRS)

Wed Oct 8 16:44:19 UTC 2014

On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 04:42:38PM +0200, Job Snijders wrote:
> 
> There are various flavors at the moment in terms of validation (please
> correct me if I am wrong): The Polish blackholing project only allows
> blackholes which fall within the set of prefixes which an ASN
> originates, the DE-CIX BS service accepts anything that is a subset of
> your AS-SET. 

There is also "dynamic validation" approach: blackhole route is considered
valid for injection if and only if there is a covering less-specific route 
with the best-path pointing to the same exit point as blackhole route.
(definition of "exit point" can vary from "next ASn is the same
we received blackhole from" to "both as-path and next-hops must be the
same and aggregate route must be marked as customer's one").

This approach has its downside too: it requires you to run task-specific 
bgp speaker. Worse yet, usually you have to write that speaker :) 

-- 
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. 
But, in practice, there is. 