Re: [GROW] Last Call: (BLACKHOLE BGP Community for Blackholing) to Proposed Standard

2016-06-26 Thread joel jaeggli
On 6/26/16 6:38 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote: > There has been no discussion on the GROW mailing list about having this > document published as Standards Track rather than informational and it's > coming as a surprise to see that this was only announced at IESG Last > Call a couple of days ago. At the

Re: [GROW] Last Call: (BLACKHOLE BGP Community for Blackholing) to Proposed Standard

2016-06-26 Thread Michel Py
> 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

Re: [GROW] Last Call: (BLACKHOLE BGP Community for Blackholing) to Proposed Standard

2016-06-26 Thread John Kristoff
On Sun, 26 Jun 2016 16:31:17 + joel jaeggli wrote: > It's not clear to me how that would even work. assuming for the sake > of arguement that the IXP by way of configured policy on the > route-server adds this community to a prefix. Here is some detail on how DE-CIX

Re: [GROW] Last Call: (BLACKHOLE BGP Community for Blackholing) to Proposed Standard

2016-06-26 Thread joel jaeggli
On 6/26/16 7:43 AM, Job Snijders wrote: > 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

Re: [GROW] Last Call: (BLACKHOLE BGP Community for Blackholing) to Proposed Standard

2016-06-26 Thread Nick Hilliard
Job Snijders wrote: > 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. I wasn't suggesting it was. What I said was two things: 1. regarding everything except section 3.4: if two organisations decide to

Re: [GROW] Last Call: (BLACKHOLE BGP Community for Blackholing) to Proposed Standard

2016-06-26 Thread Job Snijders
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

Re: [GROW] Last Call: (BLACKHOLE BGP Community for Blackholing) to Proposed Standard

2016-06-26 Thread Nick Hilliard
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'

Re: [GROW] Last Call: (BLACKHOLE BGP Community for Blackholing) to Proposed Standard

2016-06-26 Thread Job Snijders
Dear Nick, On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 02:38:33PM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote: > The IESG wrote: > > The IESG has received a request from the Global Routing Operations WG > > (grow) to consider the following document: > > - 'BLACKHOLE BGP Community for Blackholing' > >as Proposed Standard > > > >

Re: [GROW] Last Call: (BLACKHOLE BGP Community for Blackholing) to Proposed Standard

2016-06-26 Thread Nick Hilliard
The IESG wrote: > The IESG has received a request from the Global Routing Operations WG > (grow) to consider the following document: > - 'BLACKHOLE BGP Community for Blackholing' >as Proposed Standard > > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits > final comments