[33343] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: net.terrorism
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Paul A Vixie)
Tue Jan 9 07:59:51 2001
Message-Id: <200101091251.EAA57581@redpaul.mfnx.net>
To: Sabri Berisha <sabri@bit.nl>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: Message from Sabri Berisha <sabri@bit.nl>
of "Tue, 09 Jan 2001 13:43:50 +0100." <Pine.LNX.4.30.0101091339360.14900-100000@pomo.bit.nl>
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 04:51:32 -0800
From: Paul A Vixie <vixie@mfnx.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
this is not relevant to nanog, and because of the high likelihood that any
private reply i send will end up being posted to nanog later, i'm going to
drop out of this thread after this reply.
> What I would expect is that you would choose between two things:
>
> 1. you blackhole but do NOT announce those netblocks;
> 2. you annonce AND deliver traffic to every host in it;
>
> Don't you agree that announcing means delivering traffic?
no.
> Especially for customers.
you should read the terms of service in your abovenet customer agreement to
find out what customers can expect from abovenet.
> > why are we discussing this on nanog?
>
> Because Above.net seems violates the first thing needed in
> internetworking: trust. If you tell me you will deliver traffic to $blah,
> I think I may expect you to do so. That's my whole point. Nullroute as
> much as you want but don't announce it on your border routers...
oh good, yet another pointless debate held in yet another ivory tower. bye.
