That's the idea (i.e. make it as inconvenient as possible for those who hurt the rest of the 'net). The fact that you're upset proves that it works. Don't complain here - complain to UUNet. The procedure to be removed from their filters is fairly simple, IIRC. If you expect sympathy here, you may as well bathe in honey and dive head-first into a bees'-nest. Once UUNet removes or corrects the offending user/network, you'll have the connectivity you expect, and the rest of us will have one less a-hole to worry about. :My name is Sabri. I'm just another dude involved in internetworking and I :work for a small isp in The Netherlands. : :I am concerned. Concerned about people and companies who think they are in :the position to be net.gods and for political reasons destroy the free :character of the internet. s/destroy/preserve/ :In the history of the internet, people have been trusting each other. On :the lower technical levels, great things like peering have been developed. :At the various IX'es, commercial and non-profit companies exchange :information about each others routes using BGP4 and various other routing :protocols. Exactly. :In my opinion, announcing a netblock using BGP4 is making a promise to :carry traffic to a destination within that netblock. If you feel that :parts of that network are against your ethics or AUP, you should not be :announcing such a netblock. If you do so, you will make a promise which :you do not forfill. That is not a nice thing to do in a world which is :based on trust and agreements between parties. Using any routing protocol is a promise to be able to deliver packets to a given destination. It's not just your opinion, it's rfc-documented. Above only makes such announements to those who *WANT* to listen. :I was shocked to find out that one of the larger transit providers (which :the company I work for buys transit from) is actively violating the trust :it has been given by the internetworld. Most folks at the "larger transit providers" agree with Above's approach. You wouldn't happen to be in marketing, would you? :Above.net is blocking a host in UUnet IP space. After finding out about :this we notified Above.net in The Netherlands and asked what it was about :and requested them to stop announcing the netblock if they would continue :to nullroute the host involved. After various contacts about this matter, :Above.net answered with the following statements (according to the :salesdroid it came from Paul Vixie himself): If you expect sympathy, nanog is probably not the best place to bitch about Vixie. :> 194.178.232.55/32. --> this tester is part of a /16 belonging to :> uunet, and sends traffic which is in violation of our AUG. we :> complained to uunet without any effect. if we have blocked access :> from this /32 to our backbone, we are within our rights. : :After this mail, we contacted Above.net again. They basically told us it :was for our own protection because that traffic from that host does not :comply to their AUP. We specifically told them we really don't mind them :blackholing that host but *announcing* a route for it. So far no response. Again, only those who want to listen will hear the route. Talk to your own noc.