backbones filtering unsanctioned sites
baldur.norddahl at gmail.com
Fri Feb 17 00:06:52 UTC 2017
For transit maybe Cogent should have dropped the route, so they did not
advertize a route to peers that included null routed parts.
Den 16/02/2017 kl. 21.52 skrev Jean-Francois Mezei:
> On 2017-02-16 14:59, Sadiq Saif wrote:
>> From -
> Many thanks.
> pardon my ignorance here, but question:
> For an outfit such as Cogent which acts not only as a transit provider,
> but also edge provider to large end users, can it easily implement such
> a court order to block only edge interfaces and not to its transit
> (aka: propagate null routes for 188.8.131.52 only to interfaces that
> lead to end users, but leave core/GBP aspects without the block.)
> Or is BGP and any internal routing protocols so intermingled that it
> becomes hard to manage such blocks ?
> The difficulty for network to block traffic becomes an important
> argument when trying to convince governments that blocking should not be
> done. (ex: Québec government wanting to block access to gambling sites
> except its own).
More information about the NANOG