Dear Nick, On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 02:38:33PM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote: > The IESG wrote: > > The IESG has received a request from the Global Routing Operations WG > > (grow) to consider the following document: > > - 'BLACKHOLE BGP Community for Blackholing' > > <draft-ietf-grow-blackholing-00.txt> as Proposed Standard > > > > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits > > final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the > > i...@ietf.org mailing lists by 2016-07-04. Exceptionally, comments may be > > sent to i...@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the > > beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. > > <snip>
> I don't think this is an appropriate document for standards track, or > even for publication as an RFC. > The reason for this is that section 3.4 creates the expectation that > IXPs could or should be involved in facilitating blackholing of IP > addresses. You are correct, IXPs _could_ be involved in facilitating blackholing of traffic. This draft does not change today's reality. Follow-up question: without section 3.4 - would you still object? > The problem is layer 9: if a mechanism of this form is standardised, > it will be viewed by governments, courts and law-enforcement a > centralised big red button which can be pressed at will to block IP > access to their bêtes-noires du jour. And it turns out that there are > lots of things that governments, courts and LEAs don't like, ranging > from file sharing to witchcraft (one of the default blocking > categories in the UK) to youtube (lots of countries) to google > (france), to whatever. It's not just DDoS that will be targeted here. This is a stifling argument. A blackhole mechanism is already today standardized as RFC 5635. This draft merely exists to standardize a codepoint. > The proposal itself has raised an unusual level of disquiet among the > IXP community, which seems to be split down the middle about whether > standardising blackhole communities in an RFC is a good idea or not. > Some IXPs think it's great. Others think it's a terrible idea. For > sure, there is no consensus about this in the IXP world. There is also the carrier community to consider. Currently a ton of carriers have implemented their own codepoint to trigger blackholing, a very incomplete overview follows of communities currently in use by carriers for the purpose of blackholing: 2914:666, 209:0, 701:9999, 1239:66, 1273:666, 1299:999, 1759:666, 2828:1650, 3212:9999, 3257:2666, 65000:0, 3327:666, 3356:9999, 6762:666, 3561:666, 4323:187, 5580:666, 6461:5990, 7029:4506, 7922:666, 8100:6666, 8218:9999, 8220:63999, 8708:9999, 49544:666, 11537:911, 15756:666, 19401:911, 23265:666 and 286:66. It is long overdue to standardize all these towards 65535:666 (BLACKHOLE). Kind regards, Job _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list GROW@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
