[178224] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: v6 deagg
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jack Bates)
Fri Feb 20 12:23:35 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 11:23:22 -0600
From: Jack Bates <jbates@paradoxnetworks.net>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <54E708E5.1040308@inblock.ru>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On 2/20/2015 4:13 AM, Nikolay Shopik wrote:
>
> rfc6115 have good overview and recommendation. IPv6 clearly need
> separation of identification of endpoints and routing information to
> that endpoint.
>
>
I'm not overly familiar, but I'm always good for new things if one
process is supported.
deagg X network to Y provider, ask provider to blackhole XY address in X.
Not every provider has a good blackhole system. Sometimes you desire to
move a subset of data to a single provider for purposes of discarding
data. I believe some of the protocols allow multiple sub-identifiers for
load balancing purposes, but I'm unsure how strictly they are adhered to
or if they might be ignored.
I know BGP blackholing is a coincidental abuse of how BGP works, but it
is a commonly used one; especially when some city endusers now have more
bandwidth than entire rural ISPs. DDOS/amplification isn't always
necessary these days. :(
Jack
