[75840] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: ULA and RIR cost-recovery
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Thu Nov 25 16:47:27 2004
To: Daniel Senie <dts@senie.com>
Cc: NANOG <NANOG@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 24 Nov 2004 22:09:02 EST."
<6.2.0.14.2.20041124220625.07665378@mail.amaranth.net>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 16:46:27 -0500
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
--==_Exmh_1087421860P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 22:09:02 EST, Daniel Senie said:
> Seems to me we wrote a document some years ago about how to address this.
> If the upstream ISP isn't willing to filter at their edges, then write
> contract language that the client is required to filter such traffic in
> THEIR border routers. The typical customer with a few T-1 lines and some
> small routers could easily afford the CPU power in their routers to
> implement a few lines of ACL filtering.
>
> This sure seems like a weak reason to scuttle an otherwise useful and
> desired capability.
Exactly. And how many places *still* botch it in the IPv4 world?
And there's no reason I've seen that we should expect *any* different
in the IPv6 world....
--==_Exmh_1087421860P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQFBplKycC3lWbTT17ARAox5AKCD6s004JnztlxHlOX1yqC8mOU7XQCeNMUi
eMrL5NVm/SKBDPV38VTqS40=
=WkBb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_1087421860P--
