On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 09:46:15PM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote:
Job Snijders wrote:
Should it be somehow clarified that router vendors are not supposed to
implement mechanisms, which are by default enabled, that discard traffic
for BLACKHOLE'ed prefixes?
I would have said the opposite, i.e. that any traffic tagged with this
prefix is dropped via e.g. null0 or martian mechanisms / etc. But it
definitely needs to be defined because at the moment it's ambiguous.
Ambiguity is fine when it's your own network, but not fine when you're
defining something with global scope.
Why would you say the opposite? That goes counter to what the vendors
are shipping today. The suggestion "do not do anything" is compatible
with what ships today! :)
We can add a new section "3.4 - Vendor recommendations" and describe
what it is we'd expect a network device vendor to implement or not to
implement.
Also, as Michael Py mentioned, it's not clear whether this refers to
source based blackholing or destination based blackholing.
The word 'source' does not appear in the draft. In my reading of section
3.1 it is obvious destination based blackholing, but I welcome a
suggestion to reword a sentence in the introduction to include the
phrase 'destination based blackholing'.
Do you have any more comments or concerns queued up?
Kind regards,
Job