Hi Job et all, > On 26 Jun 2015, at 21:27, Job Snijders <j...@instituut.net> wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 06:27:23PM +0000, Thomas King wrote: >>> Another remark, should you decide to rename BLACKHOLEIXP to just >>> BLACKHOLE, you might want to replace the references to "IXP" throughout >>> the document and make it more general. >> >> I am not sure if a more general approach (= ISP / transit environment) >> makes lots of sense given RFC 3882. > > Can you elaborate what the conceptual difference would be between a > transit network and an IXP Route Server in this context? RFC 3882 does > not define any well known community.
I mean that for transits RFC 3882 describes how blackholing can be configured. Many transits already provide a BGP community in order to trigger blackholing. Based on the slightly recommendation of this RFC 65001:666 or variations are often used. So, here an already working solution is available. In the IPX environment the concept of blackholing is relatively new. So, we started thinking about standardising the triggering approach. > Whether packets are discarded inside the IXP fabric or somewhere in the > Transit provider's fabric^Wmagic.. I don't see much of a difference. This is fine with me. If people stand up and say the proposal should be extended to transits I am more than happy to assist. > In section 2: … > One could consider changing it to: > > "The semantics of this attribute is to allow a network to interpret > the presence of this community as an advisory qualification to drop > any traffic being sent towards this prefix." > (of course the rest of the document would also need some updating) > > For years IP networks have offered blackhole services to their > customers, much like some IXPs are now starting to do. One could argue > that a standardized blackhole community is beneficial, in the spirit of > the NOPEER community. Today NTT uses 2914:666 while Level3 uses > 3356:9999, if multi-homed networks only need to remember 1 community, > that might be easier. Ok. So, do you want to help me extending the proposal? My intention is to have the proposal ready until the cut-off date. Do you think we can make it? Anybody else wants to join? Best regards, Thomas
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ GROW mailing list GROW@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
