After this mail, we contacted Above.net again. They basically told us it was for our own protection
no.
because that traffic from that host does not comply to their AUP.
yes.
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. why are we discussing this on nanog? Paul Vixie <pvixie@mmfn.com> CTO and SVP, MFN (NASDAQ: MFNX)