Nick Simicich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> See the info at http://www.orbs.org/ for some claims about the misuse of
> MAPS. I used to be a real MAPS fan. Now I'm beginning to be bothered.
Alan Brown is a fanatic. Yesmail are spammers. Neither of these groups
are particularly well-known for their honesty.
The statements about MAPS currently on the ORBS web site, according to
every bit of independent information that I've seen, are essentially lies,
or at least gross distortions. ORBS's upstream provider has continued to
have AboveNet advertise a route to ORBS's upstream provider's network
despite the fact that AboveNet has made it very clear up-front to them
that any traffic to ORBS specifically going through AboveNet's network
will be dropped, due to ongoing attacks on AboveNet's network by ORBS.
ORBS's upstream provider is *supposed* to be allowing for this by
advertising a *separate* route for ORBS space. BGP will cope fine with
this and not route the traffic through AboveNet. However, ORBS's upstream
provider appears not to be able to do this competently, and as a result
the additional routes have been flapping, causing ORBS traffic to be
routed via AboveNet (who have already made it clear that they don't want
it on their network, as is their right) and dropped.
If ORBS has a legitimate gripe with anyone here, it's with their direct
upstream who can't get their routing right and don't want AboveNet to
change their collective routing even though it's causing problems for a
customer of theirs.
AboveNet has a right to refuse to route traffic across their network to
networks they consider abusive and don't want to talk to. This is exactly
the same principle that all spam filtering is based on. ORBS is not a
customer of AboveNet, and AboveNet doesn't appear to be violating any
contractual agreements with their actual customers. (I've certainly seen
no evidence that they are.) ORBS is, in effect, demanding that AboveNet
go to *additional* work for them (who aren't even their customer) by
breaking up the routes advertised for their *actual* customer in a way
that that customer is not apparently asking them to do.
All of the above I've gleaned just from Usenet and e-mail discussions of
this, having no direct knowledge of any of the events involved. I think
it's fairly easy to find out what's really going on by doing a bit of
research.
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
