Job Snijders wrote:
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.
I wasn't suggesting it was. What I said was two things:
1. regarding everything except section 3.4: if two organisations decide
to share blackholing information over bgp, that is orthogonal to the
connectivity medium that the two organisations use to connect to each
other. If there's an IXP in the middle, this is no different to having
a direct point-to-point ethernet connection, or even tin cans and some
string. From this point of view, it's completely irrelevant to mention
IXPs in the text.
2. relating to section 3.4: there is no consensus in the IXP world that
using route servers to exchange blackhole information is a good idea,
because it offers the opportunity to turn the IXP into a target for
implementing wide-scale blackholing. This is something that a lot of
IXPs are anxious to avoid, and having an RFC floating around which
promotes this as a viable idea is viewed by many IXPs as something which
would be unhelpful.
Nick