On 28 Jun 2016, at 16:36, Job Snijders wrote:
On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 11:27:52AM -0400, Christopher Morrow wrote:
that seems reasonable, though I don't think it necessarily addresses
Nick's issue that: "YIKES! please don't mention that IXP's can/will
do
this sort of function"
I still question the validity of Nick's concern. Since when do LEA
read
RFCs/drafts like draft-ietf-grow-blackholing and then conclude "oh,
this
RFC says that blackholing at IXPs can't be done, alrighty then, we'll
show ourselves out!".
LEAs will request what LEAs will request, regardless of technical
feasibility or IETF's acknowledgement/denial a facilitating mechanism
exists.
Job,
Not putting any particular IXP’s hat on, but as an individual I
_strongly_ agree with Nick. I see no reason to mention IX in the
document.
The IX community is trying to make sure we do not become the filtering
sink of the internet (it would not do anyone any good - except perhaps
transit providers :wink: :wink:)
A long time ago, working for another employer, my team wrote a software
called ’CleanFeed’ (it was trademarked - a trademark now owned by
BT) and then demo’ed to BT, which code named a similar project with
the same name. Today, the whole UK industry has to contend with ‘ISP
level filtering’.
You do NOT want to open any pandora’s box.
Sincerely,
Thomas