On Tue, 9 Jan 2001, Paul A Vixie wrote: (you reply fast ;)
After this mail, we contacted Above.net again. They basically told us it was for our own protection
no.
Yes, on the phone actually by the women who contacted you in the first place...
because that traffic from that host does not comply to their AUP.
yes.
I can live with that. But stop announcing it...
We specifically told them we really don't mind them blackholing that host but *announcing* a route for it. So far no response.
you expect abovenet to cut uunet's /16 into pieces so as to avoid sending to its customers the parts which violate abovenet's acceptable use guidelines? even if this were a scalable approach (considering the number of /16's which have violating /32's inside them, or will in the future), it's something i'd expect the owner of the /16 to take issue with.
What I would expect is that you would choose between two things: 1. you blackhole but do NOT announce those netblocks; 2. you annonce AND deliver traffic to every host in it; Don't you agree that announcing means delivering traffic? Especially for customers.
why are we discussing this on nanog?
Because Above.net seems violates the first thing needed in internetworking: trust. If you tell me you will deliver traffic to $blah, I think I may expect you to do so. That's my whole point. Nullroute as much as you want but don't announce it on your border routers... -- /* Sabri Berisha, non-interesting network dude. * * CCNA, BOFH, Systems admin Linux/FreeBSD */