On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 09:46:15PM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote: > 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. Why would you say the opposite? That goes counter to what the vendors are shipping today. The suggestion "do not do anything" is compatible with what ships today! :) We can add a new section "3.4 - Vendor recommendations" and describe what it is we'd expect a network device vendor to implement or not to implement. > Also, as Michael Py mentioned, it's not clear whether this refers to > source based blackholing or destination based blackholing. The word 'source' does not appear in the draft. In my reading of section 3.1 it is obvious destination based blackholing, but I welcome a suggestion to reword a sentence in the introduction to include the phrase 'destination based blackholing'. Do you have any more comments or concerns queued up? Kind regards, Job