nanog mailing list archives
Re: Using unallocated address space
From: Sean Donelan <sean () donelan com>
Date: 15 Feb 2001 14:11:53 -0800
On Thu, 15 February 2001, Alan Hannan wrote:
In this scenario you outline, combined with your proposal of a registry announcing 'black-holing routes' -- what compels the ISP to accept and act upon the routing announcement? And how does this different situation protect them from the lawsuits you suggest below?
What "compels" ISPs to filter 0.0.0.0/255.255.255.255 from their peers and not to announce it to their peers? I believe Paul Vixie is having a BOF at NANOG to discuss best practices between ISPs. And now that I don't operate a network, I've thought about publishing my full peering agreement as a template.
Current thread:
- Re: Using unallocated address space, (continued)
- Re: Using unallocated address space Roy (Feb 24)
- Re: Using unallocated address space Deepak Jain (Feb 24)
- RE: Using unallocated address space Sean Donelan (Feb 24)
- Re: Using unallocated address space - for DoS? Miguel A.L. Paraz (Feb 24)
- RE: Using unallocated address space Martin Hannigan (Feb 24)
- Re: Using unallocated address space Roy (Feb 24)
- Re: Using unallocated address space Joshua Goodall (Feb 24)
- Re: Using unallocated address space smd (Feb 24)
- Message not available
- Re: Using unallocated address space michael thomas guldan (Feb 24)
- Message not available
