Re: net.terrorism

[Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike () swm pp se>]

On Tue, 9 Jan 2001, John Fraizer wrote:

> It's your contention that Abovenet shouldn't announce 194.178.0.0/16 just
> because they are NULL routing 194.178.232.55/32 for policy reasons?  You
> ARE confused, aren't you?

If I receive a route from someone I presume that the whole block being
announced for transit is going to be reachable, unless the actual owner of
the block thinks and does otherwise.

This presumtion is obviously wrong in above.net:s case, but the only way
to make above.net stop doing this is obviously to stop being the customer
of above.net, or stop being the customer of a customer of above.net.

An interesting question is whether above.net only nullroutes
194.178.232.55/32, or do they filter packets coming FROM this IP as well,
going to other destinations? That would be worse in my book. I can choose
to not send my packets going to 194.178.232.55/32 thru above.net, but I
have much less power in whether packets coming from 194.178.232.55/32 to
my network transits above.net:s network.

Personally I believe that vuurwerk.nl should ask UUNET (their upstream)
top stop announcing their netblock to above, or at least prepend it a lot.
That would stop above.net from transiting that /16 more than absolutely
neccessary.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike () swm pp se