Job Snijders wrote: > I feel that this is not the appropiate forum to define what IXPs can, > can't, should and shouldn't in context of legal enforcement agencies. I wasn't suggesting it was. What I said was two things: 1. regarding everything except section 3.4: if two organisations decide to share blackholing information over bgp, that is orthogonal to the connectivity medium that the two organisations use to connect to each other. If there's an IXP in the middle, this is no different to having a direct point-to-point ethernet connection, or even tin cans and some string. From this point of view, it's completely irrelevant to mention IXPs in the text. 2. relating to section 3.4: there is no consensus in the IXP world that using route servers to exchange blackhole information is a good idea, because it offers the opportunity to turn the IXP into a target for implementing wide-scale blackholing. This is something that a lot of IXPs are anxious to avoid, and having an RFC floating around which promotes this as a viable idea is viewed by many IXPs as something which would be unhelpful. Nick