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:
> Should it be somehow clarified that router vendors are not supposed to
> implement mechanisms, which are by default enabled, that discard traffic
> for BLACKHOLE'ed prefixes?

I would have said the opposite, i.e. that any traffic tagged with this
prefix is dropped via e.g. null0 or martian mechanisms / etc.  But it
definitely needs to be defined because at the moment it's ambiguous.
Ambiguity is fine when it's your own network, but not fine when you're
defining something with global scope.

Also, as Michael Py mentioned, it's not clear whether this refers to
source based blackholing or destination based blackholing.

Nick




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