Re: net.terrorism

[Paul A Vixie <vixie () mfnx net>]

> 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)