nanog mailing list archives
Re: more-specifics via IX
From: Stephen Wilcox <steve.wilcox () packetrade com>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 17:06:48 -0600
On 15 Oct 2007, at 03:49, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 15-okt-2007, at 7:09, Bradley Urberg Carlson wrote:There is a customer's customer who is advertising more-specifics at the IX (and using a different source AS, to boot). I can think of a couple ways to prevent hearing these, but thought I should ask for suggestions first.What exactly is the problem?
well.. the problem of course is that you pull in the traffic from the aggregate transit prefix which costs you $$$ but then you offload it to the customer via a peering link for which you are not being paid
its a pain but you cant stop the customer from doing it.. you can however filter your customers prefix at the IX (an ASN filter would be easiest)
if you think it is malicious, you may want to hit them with something official (IANAL)
Steve
Current thread:
- more-specifics via IX Bradley Urberg Carlson (Oct 14)
- Re: more-specifics via IX Iljitsch van Beijnum (Oct 15)
- Re: more-specifics via IX Stephen Wilcox (Oct 17)
- Re: more-specifics via IX Bradley Urberg Carlson (Oct 17)
- Re: more-specifics via IX Stephen Wilcox (Oct 18)
- Re: more-specifics via IX David Ulevitch (Oct 18)
- Re: more-specifics via IX Stephen Wilcox (Oct 17)
- Re: more-specifics via IX Iljitsch van Beijnum (Oct 15)
- Re: more-specifics via IX John Payne (Oct 15)
- Re: more-specifics via IX Che-Hoo CHENG (Oct 15)
- Re: more-specifics via IX Adrian Chadd (Oct 15)
- Re: more-specifics via IX John Payne (Oct 15)