nanog mailing list archives
RE: williams spamhaus blacklist
From: "Deepak Jain" <deepak () ai net>
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 14:19:03 -0400
But it's ok when AboveNet does it?...or actually does much worse by secretly and arbitrarily blackholing various networks at will, while advertising connectivity to those networks to their BGP customers and peers?
So why keep connectivity to them? A contract term? Now that you know of the policy and aren't very happy about it, why not change providers -- you already have a few. :) I think anyone who blackholes sites within their own network should take the specifics with a community that clueful customers can use to route-around them, but obviously its their network, and whoever is setting up the blackholes can decide that for themselves. Just a suggestion. This way, blackholes designed to protect clue-light customers can be used with little detriment to clueful customers (once the communities are used and well-described/published). Just my idea. Deepak Jain AiNET
Current thread:
- Re: williams spamhaus blacklist, (continued)
- Re: williams spamhaus blacklist Justin Shore (Sep 24)
- RE: williams spamhaus blacklist McBurnett, Jim (Sep 24)
- Re: williams spamhaus blacklist Dr. Jeffrey Race (Sep 24)
- Re: williams spamhaus blacklist Dr. Jeffrey Race (Sep 25)
- Re: williams spamhaus blacklist Susan Harris (Sep 25)
- RE: Re[2]: williams spamhaus blacklist netadm (Sep 25)
- RE: Re[2]: williams spamhaus blacklist Steve Linford (Sep 25)
- RE: Re[2]: williams spamhaus blacklist netadm (Sep 25)
- Re: williams spamhaus blacklist Kai Schlichting (Sep 25)
- Re: williams spamhaus blacklist jlewis (Sep 25)
- RE: williams spamhaus blacklist Deepak Jain (Sep 25)
- Re: williams spamhaus blacklist Kai Schlichting (Sep 25)
- RE: williams spamhaus blacklist Deepak Jain (Sep 25)
- Re: williams spamhaus blacklist Kai Schlichting (Sep 25)