nanog mailing list archives

Re: net.terrorism


From: Adrian Chadd <adrian () creative net au>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 15:12:44 +0800


On Tue, Jan 09, 2001, John Payne wrote:
On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 09:49:50PM +0800, Adrian Chadd wrote:
I'd rather get partial announcements than traffic-filtered announcements.
That way, my other network pipes (which hopefully have a path without
above.net in it to vuurwerk) will take over. above.net are happy.
vuurwerk is happy. life is good. no bitching or extra configuration.

personally speaking, and no disrespect to any abovenet network engineers, or anyone
else, but I would *MUCH* rather a solution which doesn't involve them logging
onto several routers to block 1 route (I don't know how many places abovenet peer
with uunet, but I'll bet that its more than 1 place)

a) Add a blackhole route  (1 config change)
b) Tag/block route on ingress (X config changes)
c) block route on egress (Y config changes)

That in itself is bogus. How many MXes do you run? Can you seriously
tell me that every time you add a domain to your MX servers you consider
the updates "too difficult" ?

I mean, going by what you said above, we might as well run open relays.
That way, whenever we add new domains, thats 1 config change to your
primary MX host to accept mail, and bewm! it works!

Thats what scripts and other automata are for.




Adrian

-- 
Adrian Chadd                    "Sex Change: a simple job of outside 
<adrian () creative net au>       to inside plumbing."
                                    - Some random movie


Current thread: