[33358] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: net.terrorism
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Sabri Berisha)
Tue Jan 9 10:05:30 2001
X-Envelope-To: nanog@merit.edu
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 15:23:46 +0100 (CET)
From: Sabri Berisha <sabri@bit.nl>
To: <jlewis@lewis.org>
Cc: <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0101090908010.1299-100000@redhat1.mmaero.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0101091518180.17799-100000@pomo.bit.nl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Tue, 9 Jan 2001 jlewis@lewis.org wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Jan 2001, Sabri Berisha wrote:
>
> > We pay Abovenet to send traffic, not to throw it away.
>
> And if you know they can't/won't send traffic to certain destinations, you
> can static route those destinations to another carrier.
That's my point. How do I know? Do they provide a static listing with host
they blackhole? Not that I know of. I only see *some* of my traffic ending
up in /dev/null...
> > > 1) filter the route from abovenet
> >
> > They should not be announcing in the first place.
>
> They're not really announcing...they're propogating a route someone else
> announced. As Vixie said, it's highly impractical to carve up a /16
> (especially if it's not their space) just to avoid propogating a route for
> a host they don't want to carry traffic to.
If they are able to route the host to /dev/null, they will probably be
able to filter that advertisement out...
> And you're saying Above should look the other way while ORBS abuses their
> network?
No. Why do we keep getting the ORBS discussion in this? This is about
announcing and nullrouting, not mailrelaytesting.
> I think it's just about procmail time if this thread continues.
That's also a nullroute ;)
--
/* Sabri Berisha, non-interesting network dude.
*
* CCNA, BOFH, Systems admin Linux/FreeBSD
*/
