[address-policy-wg] IXP peering lan reachability
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IXP peering lan reachability
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Carlos Friaças
cfriacas at fccn.pt
Tue Oct 24 13:07:59 CEST 2017
On Tue, 24 Oct 2017, Nick Hilliard wrote: (...) > I'd politely suggest that this is an area that the RIPE NCC should not > get involved in, especially from the point of view of implicitly issuing > recommended practice by implying that there is a problem with doing > this. The IXP associations are better placed to gather consensus for > creating best practices, and there is no general consensus in the IXP > community on this issue. > > As regards using this as a metric for determining whether an ixp address > assignment is being used for legitimate purposes, I'd suggest that this > is of only marginal use at best. By all means run a port scan to see if > there is any obvious mis-use (e.g. services listening on www/smtp/etc), > but the presence or absence of the route in the dfz doesn't mean > anything one way or another. > > Nick > CTO, INEX +1. I only have some doubts about running (regular) portscans. Cheers, Carlos
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IXP peering lan reachability
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]