Re: No, ORBS is a good tool [WAS: Alright, ORBS sucks - next topic,please ;) [was RE: RBL-type BGPservice for known rogue networks?]]

["JP Donnio" <ml-nanog () TBS-internet com>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Pim van Riezen" <pi () vuurwerk nl>
To: "JP Donnio" <ml-nanog () TBS-internet com>
Cc: "Peter van Dijk" <petervd () vuurwerk nl>; <nanog () merit edu>
Sent: Sunday, July 09, 2000 2:17 PM
Subject: Re: No, ORBS is a good tool [WAS: Alright, ORBS sucks - next
topic,please ;) [was RE: RBL-type BGPservice for known rogue networks?]]


> > Well we cannot really oppose this, who on this list is providing access
to
> > the entire whole internet? Obviously not abovenet. If they want to deny
> > traffic from the tester entering their network, why not. You should make
> > sure that no other traffic (your business) is hurt by this. Why not
setup an
> > AS with a /24 and run the tester from there? Or several of them in
diverse
> > locations.
>
> Problem is, we're just an ISP. So we'd have to get our uplinks to organize
> that. And since the purpose of the blackhole was beyond blocking the
> tester (they did have a similair block on the /32 of the tester, which was
> at least morally defendable), but rather to pressure us to take the thing
> offline, I'm afraid that moving it to another /24 will not make any
> difference, there'd still be 'retaliations' against the hosting ISP.

That's interesting. This would prove the Abovenet's behaviour is evil; if
they can filter on the /32 but choose to filter on the /24, they are morally
undefendable. Even ORBS opposers cannot support such behavior I guess!

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: