On 6/29/16 1:46 PM, 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. > > Also, as Michael Py mentioned, it's not clear whether this refers to > source based blackholing or destination based blackholing. It should be an inherent property that what is being blackholed is traffic bound for the prefix that the community is attached to is it not? Source based RTBH requires some explicit coordination between the parties using it. > Nick > > _______________________________________________ > GROW mailing list > GROW@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature