[address-policy-wg] 2006-05 New Policy Proposal (PI Assignment Size)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-05 New Policy Proposal (PI Assignment Size)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-05 New Policy Proposal (PI Assignment Size)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Max Tulyev
president at ukraine.su
Thu Sep 21 19:33:48 CEST 2006
Per Heldal wrote: > What the immediate upstream may think would be irrelevant. *If* there is > *ever* consensus within the RIPE community to have the NCC reclaim > blocks, there would have to be mechanisms in place to enforce the > decision. That would most probably involve a quarantine period for > reclaimed prefixes during which transit providers in the region would be > asked to black-hole the space. No, not black-hole! Just don't accept! Because of there will be another period of "de-black-holing" ;) and so on... > It only takes a handful of large transit providers to black-hole a > prefix to render that address-block useless. Again, if there is no inetnum/as/roure objects, "large transit providers" just drop this because of RR DB filters. This also true for those who "transmit pirate signal into the Matrix" ;) using fake IPs and ASes. > > The question isn't if it can be done or not, but whether the RIPE > community as a whole really wants such a scheme to be implemented. > I think it must be done. Not only because of this case, but also for blocking unauthorized announces. -- WBR, Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253 at FIDO)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-05 New Policy Proposal (PI Assignment Size)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-05 New Policy Proposal (PI Assignment Size)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]