nanog mailing list archives

Re: net.terrorism


From: Sabri Berisha <sabri () bit nl>
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 15:23:46 +0100 (CET)


On Tue, 9 Jan 2001 jlewis () lewis org wrote:

On Tue, 9 Jan 2001, Sabri Berisha wrote:

We pay Abovenet to send traffic, not to throw it away.

And if you know they can't/won't send traffic to certain destinations, you
can static route those destinations to another carrier.

That's my point. How do I know? Do they provide a static listing with host
they blackhole? Not that I know of. I only see *some* of my traffic ending
up in /dev/null...

1) filter the route from abovenet

They should not be announcing in the first place.

They're not really announcing...they're propogating a route someone else
announced.  As Vixie said, it's highly impractical to carve up a /16
(especially if it's not their space) just to avoid propogating a route for
a host they don't want to carry traffic to.

If they are able to route the host to /dev/null, they will probably be
able to filter that advertisement out...

And you're saying Above should look the other way while ORBS abuses their
network?

No. Why do we keep getting the ORBS discussion in this? This is about
announcing and nullrouting, not mailrelaytesting.

I think it's just about procmail time if this thread continues.

That's also a nullroute ;)

-- 
/*  Sabri Berisha, non-interesting network dude.
 *
 *  CCNA, BOFH, Systems admin Linux/FreeBSD
 */



Current thread: