On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 4:59 PM, joel jaeggli <joe...@bogus.com> wrote:
> On 6/29/16 1:46 PM, 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. > > > > Also, as Michael Py mentioned, it's not clear whether this refers to > > source based blackholing or destination based blackholing. > > It should be an inherent property that what is being blackholed is > traffic bound for the prefix that the community is attached to is it not? > > Source based RTBH requires some explicit coordination between the > parties using it. > > I like this game... but, "Why would the document specify that this is either/or src/dest blackholing?" maybe I'm expecting consenting adults to still be playing at the end of the day...
_______________________________________________ GROW mailing list GROW@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
