[34654] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Using unallocated address space
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Sean Donelan)
Thu Feb 15 17:22:26 2001
Date: 15 Feb 2001 14:11:53 -0800
Message-ID: <20010215221153.14395.cpmta@c004.sfo.cp.net>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Disposition: inline
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: nanog@merit.edu
From: Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Thu, 15 February 2001, Alan Hannan wrote:
> In this scenario you outline, combined with your proposal of
> a registry announcing 'black-holing routes' -- what compels
> the ISP to accept and act upon the routing announcement?
>
> And how does this different situation protect them from the
> lawsuits you suggest below?
What "compels" ISPs to filter 0.0.0.0/255.255.255.255 from their
peers and not to announce it to their peers?
I believe Paul Vixie is having a BOF at NANOG to discuss best practices
between ISPs. And now that I don't operate a network, I've thought
about publishing my full peering agreement as a template.
