[63036] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: williams spamhaus blacklist
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Deepak Jain)
Thu Sep 25 14:20:12 2003
Reply-To: <deepak@ai.net>
From: "Deepak Jain" <deepak@ai.net>
To: <jlewis@lewis.org>, "Leo Bicknell" <bicknell@ufp.org>
Cc: <nanog@merit.edu>
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 14:19:03 -0400
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0309251220470.1335-100000@redhat1.mmaero.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
> But it's ok when AboveNet does it?...or actually does much worse by
> secretly and arbitrarily blackholing various networks at will, while
> advertising connectivity to those networks to their BGP customers and
> peers?
>
So why keep connectivity to them? A contract term? Now that you know of the
policy and aren't very happy about it, why not change providers -- you
already have a few. :)
I think anyone who blackholes sites within their own network should take the
specifics with a community that clueful customers can use to route-around
them, but obviously its their network, and whoever is setting up the
blackholes can decide that for themselves. Just a suggestion.
This way, blackholes designed to protect clue-light customers can be used
with little detriment to clueful customers (once the communities are used
and well-described/published).
Just my idea.
Deepak Jain
AiNET
