On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 02:09:52AM -0500, Rick Casarez wrote: > For the Blackhole community can we just describe its purpose/usage and > just show the *:666 or *:999 as examples? I think the purpose and > function matter a lot more than what arbitrary number is used.
I've read all policies available at http://www.onesc.net/communities/, searched for a blackhole/discard/nullroute listing and wrote down those numbers. If a network didnt list it's blackhole community on onesc.net I just ignored it. I am not saying this is proper quantative analysis, but it offers some insight: community - Autonomous Systemss ASN:0 - AS209 ASN:66 - AS1239 ASN:187 - AS4323 ASN:666 - AS8972, AS7922, AS5580, AS49544, AS4436, AS3327, AS2914, AS23265, AS1759, AS15756, AS6939 ASN:911 - AS19401, AS11537 ASN:997 - AS5617 ASN:999 - AS1299 ASN:2666 - AS3257 ASN:6666 - AS8100, AS29761 ASN:9999 - AS8708, AS8218, AS3356, AS3212 In other words, while ASN:666 is populair, I would not describe it as the defacto standard. Maybe we should just describe that a single community should be choosen for the purpose of blackholing, and add a reference to https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5635 "Remote Triggered Black Hole Filtering with Unicast Reverse Path Forwarding (uRPF)" ? Kind regards, Job _______________________________________________ BCOP mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/bcop
