[148329] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: In search of uplink vendor
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Justin M. Streiner)
Thu Jan 12 12:36:48 2012
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 08:41:23 -0500 (EST)
From: "Justin M. Streiner" <streiner@cluebyfour.org>
To: bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com
In-Reply-To: <20120112170735.GB29157@vacation.karoshi.com.>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Thu, 12 Jan 2012, bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 08:01:58AM -0500, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Jan 2012, Paul Kaminsky wrote:
>>> 1. 1 Gbps link with complete block of UDP/ICMP protocol
>> One question:
>> 1. Not knowing anything about your business, is there a specific reason
>> that you want "a complete block of UDP/ICMP protocol"? That can be
>> problematic with IPv4, and downright foolish with IPv6.
> perhaps we are walking around w/ incomplete notions of what
> constitutes a "complete block of UDP/ICMP protocol"...
My notion of the original statement was that the OP was looking for a
provider that would block all UDP and ICMP, as in firewalls and packet
filters. I also made the possibly-incorrect assumption that if the OP
has an ASN from which to announce prefixes, it would also be reasonable to
expect that they already have at least one prefix to announce.
From that angle, 'problematic' and 'downright foolish' is not such a far
walk ;)
jms
