Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 10:54:30PM +0200, Job Snijders: > On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 09:46:15PM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote: > > Job Snijders wrote: > > > Should it be somehow clarified that router vendors are not supposed to > > > implement mechanisms, which are by default enabled, that discard traffic > > > for BLACKHOLE'ed prefixes? > > > > I would have said the opposite, i.e. that any traffic tagged with this > > prefix is dropped via e.g. null0 or martian mechanisms / etc. But it > > definitely needs to be defined because at the moment it's ambiguous. > > Ambiguity is fine when it's your own network, but not fine when you're > > defining something with global scope. > > Why would you say the opposite? That goes counter to what the vendors > are shipping today. The suggestion "do not do anything" is compatible > with what ships today! :) > > We can add a new section "3.4 - Vendor recommendations" and describe > what it is we'd expect a network device vendor to implement or not to > implement.
It may be useful to be able to forward BH traffic off a router for analysis, so discarding may not be desired. I'd leave what is done with traffic by default for configuration by operator. _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list GROW@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
