[29891] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: No, ORBS is a good tool [WAS: Alright, ORBS sucks - next topic,
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Pim van Riezen)
Sun Jul 9 08:20:38 2000
Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2000 14:17:58 +0200
From: Pim van Riezen <pi@vuurwerk.nl>
To: JP Donnio <ml-nanog@TBS-internet.com>
Cc: Peter van Dijk <petervd@vuurwerk.nl>, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <00d701bfe99e$16b44240$258327d4@tbsinternet.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SGI.4.05.10007091413190.717933-100000@jones.madscience.nl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Sun, 9 Jul 2000, JP Donnio wrote:
> > > traffic from our network to the NZ-based site (where the database and
> > > website run) dropped to a dead stop inside AboveNet space.
>
> So their restrained the transit they sold... without notifying the contract
> holder I guess.
The standard reply here is "we do not disclose details on transit
customer contracts". Pretty convenient.
> > AboveNet has, at one time, blackholed our /24, including our nameservers,
> > everywhere they could. This meant 30.000 domains were *unreachable* for
> > abovenet customers.
>
> Well we cannot really oppose this, who on this list is providing access to
> the entire whole internet? Obviously not abovenet. If they want to deny
> traffic from the tester entering their network, why not. You should make
> sure that no other traffic (your business) is hurt by this. Why not setup an
> AS with a /24 and run the tester from there? Or several of them in diverse
> locations.
Problem is, we're just an ISP. So we'd have to get our uplinks to organize
that. And since the purpose of the blackhole was beyond blocking the
tester (they did have a similair block on the /32 of the tester, which was
at least morally defendable), but rather to pressure us to take the thing
offline, I'm afraid that moving it to another /24 will not make any
difference, there'd still be 'retaliations' against the hosting ISP.
> > Which would be a big bloody shame :(
>
> Sure it would. It should be possible to avoid AboveNet though. Isolate the
> tester from your business and let him block the new /24 if he wants. And
> make sure that the facts are clearly explained on the web; your previous
> email was pretty clear I think.
In the current situation he can (and previously did) block the /32 of the
tester. He extended that to a /24, so if I move to another /24 with the
tester I'm afraid he'll probably move up another layer. For the record,
the block is currently gone, but this measure was marked as "temporarily".
Cheers,
Pi
