[37055] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: black hat .cn networks
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Alex Bligh)
Mon Apr 30 19:06:18 2001
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 23:26:54 +0100
From: Alex Bligh <alex@alex.org.uk>
Reply-To: Alex Bligh <alex@alex.org.uk>
To: Dan Hollis <goemon@anime.net>, Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>
Cc: "'nanog@merit.edu'" <nanog@merit.edu>,
Alex Bligh <alex@alex.org.uk>
Message-ID: <1041425782.988673214@[169.254.25.186]>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0104301510400.8217-100000@anime.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
> On Mon, 30 Apr 2001, Roeland Meyer wrote:
>> How quickly can CN be firewalled anyway?
>
> As quickly as you can write route-map filters
I just love the way (some) Americans bleat about their
supposed constitutional rights to have their packets
passed between any given pair of networks, but (perhaps
others) are quite happy to route-map out entire
subcontinents on the basis there might be a few
(i.e. statistically insignificant number of)
trouble makers there... Somehow I just can't
imagine someone suggesting AOL / Earthlink
(& I've seen plenty of 'interesting' packets
from there) are blackholed for the same reason
would get away with this on NANOG.
--
Alex Bligh
Personal Capacity
