Re: No, ORBS is a good tool [WAS: Alright, ORBS sucks - next topic, please ;) [was RE: RBL-type BGPservice for known rogue networks?]]

["JP Donnio" <ml-nanog () TBS-internet com>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter van Dijk" <petervd () vuurwerk nl>
To: <nanog () merit edu>
Sent: Sunday, July 09, 2000 12:08 PM
Subject: Re: No, ORBS is a good tool [WAS: Alright, ORBS sucks - next topic,
please ;) [was RE: RBL-type BGPservice for known rogue networks?]]


> > We currently host the ORBS tester. We've had several incidents where
> > traffic from our network to the NZ-based site (where the database and
> > website run) dropped to a dead stop inside AboveNet space.

So their restrained the transit they sold... without notifying the contract
holder I guess.

> AboveNet has, at one time, blackholed our /24, including our nameservers,
> everywhere they could. This meant 30.000 domains were *unreachable* for
> abovenet customers.

Well we cannot really oppose this, who on this list is providing access to
the entire whole internet? Obviously not abovenet. If they want to deny
traffic from the tester entering their network, why not. You should make
sure that no other traffic (your business) is hurt by this. Why not setup an
AS with a /24 and run the tester from there? Or several of them in diverse
locations.


> > The problem stems in the fact that Vixie and Rand, in their role as
> > AboveNet staff, take it upon themselves to not only demand that ORBS not
> > test their own network, but also that the tests do not pass their
transit
> > routes. Two weeks ago our primary /24 got nullrouted inside AboveNet
space
> > without any prior communication from their side (no abuse-complaints, no
> > mail to our uplinks, nothing), effectively blocking around 30,000
domains
> > from being reachable.
>
> As I stated in another email, indeed, AboveNet does not warn or complain.
> They just blackhole.
>
> > I took up communication with vixie, basically trying to get into some
form
> > of dialogue to get issues settled. The core of his reply is that he does
> > not want to provide any information to ORBS to enable them to comply to
> > his demands of ORBS tests not passing AboveNet transit and he demands
that
> > we take the testers offline. We're still pondering our options here.
Silly
> > as this entire venture is, we may not be able to afford losing
routability
> > for our customer base so we might actually have to give in to his
demands.
> Which would be a big bloody shame :(

Sure it would. It should be possible to avoid AboveNet though. Isolate the
tester from your business and let him block the new /24 if he wants. And
make sure that the facts are clearly explained on the web; your previous
email was pretty clear I think.

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: