Re: [GROW] Last Call: <draft-ietf-grow-blackholing-00.txt> (BLACKHOLE BG

On 6/26/16 7:43 AM, Job Snijders wrote:
> 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.
It's not clear to me how that would even work. assuming for the sake of
arguement that the IXP by way of configured policy on the route-server
adds this community to a prefix.

If the route is withdrawn by the participant from the mlpe the
black-hole goes away...

Since the ixp doesn't control the prefix announcement the addition of
transitive attributes in a fashion counter to the wishes of the parties
involved seems self-defeating.

If the ixp mlpe is engaged in prefix hijacking (and that includes more
specifcs for announced blocks), well... that's not an exchange we deal
with anymore.

> Kind regards,
>
> Job

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature