[29037] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: illicit above.net announcements?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joe Abley)
Tue Jun 6 05:44:29 2000
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 21:42:21 +1200 (NZST)
From: Joe Abley <jabley@automagic.org>
To: Peter van Dijk <petervd@vuurwerk.nl>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <20000606050340.M35540@vuurwerk.nl>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSO.4.21.0006062136150.4609-100000@splatter.telstra.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Tue, 6 Jun 2000, Peter van Dijk wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 01, 2000 at 06:30:03PM -0700, Paul Vixie wrote:
> >
> > kai@pac-rim.net (Kai Schlichting) writes:
> >
> > > Anyone here who is on the Vienna/London/Amsterdam exchange(s) and
> > > who is seeing what is alleged here: above.net leaking and/or
> > > flapping routes that are not their own ?
> >
> > Abovenet receives /16's from a customer, who is the upstream of Manawatu.
> > Abovenet duly advertises these /16's to its other customers, and its peers.
> >
> > Abovenet also blocks all traffic to/from ORBS, due to AUP violations.
>
> If Abovenet considers ORBS's business an AUP violation, why is it accepting
> the advertisements at all, other than to hijack traffic for the netblock
> they dislike?
The /16s that Paul referred to are aggregate supernets that cover many
other New Zealand networks than just Manawatu/ORBS. Manawatu's provider is
advertising longer-prefix routes specific to Manawatu to other transit
providers than AboveNet, precisely to draw traffic around the blackhole.
I have no opinions on the veracity of AboveNet's claims, or the validity
of Alan's crusade, but the implication in your paragraph above is
misleading, IMHO.
Joe
