On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 03:23:53PM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote:
Job Snijders wrote:
Follow-up question: without section 3.4 - would you still object?
I don't think that IXPs should be mentioned anywhere in this document.
For the general case of blackholing, an IXP is a clearing house so
should not get involved in the business of dropping its participants'
traffic. In the case of route servers, blackholing turns the IXP into
a legal target.
I feel that this is not the appropiate forum to define what IXPs can,
can't, should and shouldn't in context of legal enforcement agencies.
Kind regards,
Job