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

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Job Snijders wrote:
> Follow-up question: without section 3.4 - would you still object?

I don't think that IXPs should be mentioned anywhere in this document.
For the general case of blackholing, an IXP is a clearing house so
should not get involved in the business of dropping its participants'
traffic.  In the case of route servers, blackholing turns the IXP into a
legal target.

Nick




[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]