ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [GROW] Last Call: <draft-ietf-grow-blackholing-00.txt> (BLACKHOLE BGP Community for Blackholing) to Proposed Standard

2016-07-03 19:08:41
no.  non-transitiveness through local naming, the reason this has not
allowed serious damage in current practice.

a receiving operator could limit scope, if they chose.  something like

route-map foo p 10
 match community blackhole
 match as-path ^([0-9]+_){1,2}$
 set ip next-hop null0
route-map foo d 20
 match community blackhole
route-map foo ...

yes, they *could* if they so chose.

the problem is that most won't.  as we know, unintentional (or more
correctly, thoughtless) leakage of all sorts of garbage is rampant
today.  weaponizing (you gotta love american verbing of nouns)
well-known communities that will assuredly be leaked; what could
possibly go wrong?

randy

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>