On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 03:23:53PM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote: > Job Snijders wrote: > > Follow-up question: without section 3.4 - would you still object? > > I don't think that IXPs should be mentioned anywhere in this document. > For the general case of blackholing, an IXP is a clearing house so > should not get involved in the business of dropping its participants' > traffic. In the case of route servers, blackholing turns the IXP into > a legal target.
I feel that this is not the appropiate forum to define what IXPs can, can't, should and shouldn't in context of legal enforcement agencies. Kind regards, Job _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list GROW@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
