> Zhuangshunwan wrote :
> then if other communities "ASN:666" are widespread in the wild
They are.
I am the operator of one of the largest ASN:666 BGP blacklist feeds; in the
past, I have opposed the standardization of ASN:666 because the text was too
vague.
Long story made short : there is
> Job Snijders wrote :
> What this document provides is a well-known BGP community to be used for a
> commonly understood purpose,
> and the document acknowledges that the rules differ from provider to
> provider, just like today with the
> myriad of communities. It is up to the operator to
> Thomas Mangin wrote :
> A long time ago, working for another employer, my team wrote a software
> called ’CleanFeed’ (it was trademarked - a
> trademark now owned by BT) and then demo’ed to BT, which code named a similar
> project with the same name. Today,
> the whole UK industry has to
> Job Snijders wrote :
> We've worked all night and the above work has been completed. :)
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-grow-blackholing-01
Great job. I no longer oppose this text.
I have a suggestion : make it somehow more clear than the purpose of this draft
is to blackhole
> Nick Hilliard wrote :
> Personally - and I say this as an IXP operator who has had yet another
> week-end ruined due to prolonged DDoS problems on an IXP
> fabric - I don't think this is an appropriate document for standards track,
> or even for publication as an RFC. The reason for this
> is
