[26763] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Fw: Administrivia: ORBS
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Paul A Vixie)
Sat Jan 15 16:06:35 2000
Message-Id: <200001152104.NAA10598@redpaul.mibh.net>
To: nanog@merit.edu
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 15 Jan 2000 20:48:10 GMT."
<Pine.LNX.4.10.10001152041390.30643-100000@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 13:04:42 -0800
From: Paul A Vixie <vixie@mibh.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
> I don't have much of a problem about Abovenet having a policy of not
> allowing spam across their network, as you say it is theirs. What is bad,
> however, is that Abovenet still advertise the prefix surrending hosts they
> block, blackholing these hosts for their BGP mutilhomed customers -
this is pretty hard for abovenet to fix, since no router i'm aware of is
able to take in a /13 from some customer, blackhole a smattering of /32's
inside of it, and only send the remnants of the /13 to its downstreams.
what MIBH does, as a transit customer of abovenet among others, is to take
an RBL BGP feed just for the purpose of route-mapping all of its contents
toward one of our other transit providers. (MIBH is the transit provider
for MAPS, among other things, and MAPS has web servers which *must* be able
to be reached by people listed on its RBL. is that funny, or what?) i
agree that this is painful, and if it were my network i'd find some way to
let abovenet's multihomed customers automatically avoid abovenet for things
which aren't going to work.
