nanog mailing list archives
Re: Peering with abusers...good or bad?
From: Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl () gmail com>
Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2018 01:22:45 +0100
So I want to buy additional ports at each IX. The slowest speed they offer. If I am lucky they have a free 100 Mbps. And then I just announce the prefix I want to blackhole. Doesn't matter that the port overloads. I am just going to null route the traffic anyway... Regards Baldur Den 3. mar. 2018 01.12 skrev "Job Snijders" <job () instituut net>: On Sat, 3 Mar 2018 at 01:08, Bryan Holloway <bryan () shout net> wrote:
On 3/2/18 5:29 PM, Ca By wrote:On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 2:13 PM Matthew Petach <mpetach () netflight com>wrote:On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 4:13 PM, Dan Hollis <goemon () sasami anime net> wrote:OVH does not suprise me in the least. Maybe this is finally what it will take to get people to de-peer them.If I de-peer them, I pay my upstream to carry the attack traffic.Your isp will do rtbh Your peers wontSome public IXs support RTBH ... Equinix, DE-CIX, to name two ... PNIs is a different story.
Those IX “blackhole” mechanisms are a perverse ineffective method that exists solely for marketing reasons. If you aren’t blackholing in the fabric you aren’t blackholing. Kind regards, Job
Current thread:
- Peering with abusers...good or bad? Matthew Petach (Mar 02)
- Re: Peering with abusers...good or bad? Ca By (Mar 02)
- Re: Peering with abusers...good or bad? Bryan Holloway (Mar 02)
- Re: Peering with abusers...good or bad? Job Snijders (Mar 02)
- Message not available
- Message not available
- Message not available
- Message not available
- Re: Peering with abusers...good or bad? Baldur Norddahl (Mar 02)
- Re: Peering with abusers...good or bad? Job Snijders (Mar 02)
- Re: Peering with abusers...good or bad? Bryan Holloway (Mar 02)
- Re: Peering with abusers...good or bad? Ca By (Mar 02)