From: John Fraizer [mailto:nanog@EnterZone.Net] Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2000 9:43 AM

On Tue, 26 Sep 2000, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:

...

Defense is a lot less socially antagonistic than offensively BGP black-holing antire IP-blocks (which can get you seriously sued) and creating more outages than we already have to suffer through.

Roeland,

The last time I checked, AS65535 (picked for obvious reasons) does not have a transit contract in place with my company and as such, has absolutely NO grounds to sue me if we choose to blackhole routes to them at our borders.

No transit contract -- no guaranteed transit. It's just that simple.

The operative would that I used was "can" and not "will". However, you don't discount my statement about blackholing creating artificial outages. I am proposing a more surgical response to the smurf threat. One that in no way creates outages and may be more socially acceptable. You also missed the point that a IP-block can pass the netscan.org test and STILL be a smurf amp via it's subnets. The subnet bcast addrs aren't hard to find.