Re: v6 deagg

[Jack Bates <jbates () paradoxnetworks net>]

On 2/20/2015 4:13 AM, Nikolay Shopik wrote:
> rfc6115 have good overview and recommendation. IPv6 clearly need
> separation of identification of endpoints and routing information to
> that endpoint.

I'm not overly familiar, but I'm always good for new things if one 
process is supported.

deagg X network to Y provider, ask provider to blackhole XY address in X.

Not every provider has a good blackhole system. Sometimes you desire to 
move a subset of data to a single provider for purposes of discarding 
data. I believe some of the protocols allow multiple sub-identifiers for 
load balancing purposes, but I'm unsure how strictly they are adhered to 
or if they might be ignored.

I know BGP blackholing is a coincidental abuse of how BGP works, but it 
is a commonly used one; especially when some city endusers now have more 
bandwidth than entire rural ISPs. DDOS/amplification isn't always 
necessary these days. :(

Jack