nanog mailing list archives
Re: Unwanted Traffic Removal Service (UTRS)
From: Hank Nussbacher <hank () efes iucc ac il>
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2014 09:49:39 +0300
At 22:58 09/10/2014 +0200, Christian Seitz wrote:
Allowing ASN to blackhole a prefix based on AS sets is dangerous from my point of view. In the RIPE database you can add any AS to your AS set without verification. Ok, it doesn't make much difference because most IP transit providers also filter on the AS set, but a worldwide announced /24 prefix is much more visible than a /32 blackhole route that is only announced to the participants.
See: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/routing-wg/2014-June/002696.html -Hank
Current thread:
- Re: Unwanted Traffic Removal Service (UTRS), (continued)
- Re: Unwanted Traffic Removal Service (UTRS) Job Snijders (Oct 08)
- Re: Unwanted Traffic Removal Service (UTRS) John Kristoff (Oct 08)
- Re: Unwanted Traffic Removal Service (UTRS) William Herrin (Oct 08)
- Re: Unwanted Traffic Removal Service (UTRS) John Levine (Oct 08)
- Re: Unwanted Traffic Removal Service (UTRS) Job Snijders (Oct 08)
- Re: Unwanted Traffic Removal Service (UTRS) Alexandre Snarskii (Oct 08)
- Re: Unwanted Traffic Removal Service (UTRS) Christian Seitz (Oct 09)
- Re: Unwanted Traffic Removal Service (UTRS) Job Snijders (Oct 09)
- Re: Unwanted Traffic Removal Service (UTRS) John Kristoff (Oct 09)
- RE: Unwanted Traffic Removal Service (UTRS) Naslund, Steve (Oct 09)
- Re: Unwanted Traffic Removal Service (UTRS) Hank Nussbacher (Oct 09)
- Re: Unwanted Traffic Removal Service (UTRS) Job Snijders (Oct 08)
- Re: Unwanted Traffic Removal Service (UTRS) William Herrin (Oct 08)