<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
So you're saying that the standard way of suspending a service is to
hijack their prefixes by going more specific than anyone else, and
that you're allowed to do this because you have a letter of
authority permitting you to advertise their prefixes? Surely then
the customer could withdraw this authority and you would have to
cease advertisement?<br>
<br>
Illegal or not, this practice seems to be half baked and just plain
scum. What is the point of drawing in all that traffic if you're
just going to sink it into null? What a waste of bits and CPU
cycles! Surely it would be much faster and easier to simply turn
their port off than fiddling around with filters and advertisements?<br>
<br>
Disabling a service is one (completely understandable) thing, but
what AINS has done in this circumstance seems to be with a certain
degree of malice and not "just business" as you say. By all means
disconnect a delinquent account, however it doesn't really seem like
an acceptable excuse to waste the time of your customer's techs,
their techs of their support agency, PacNet's techs, the AFP, APNIC
and any other agencies that have been drawn into this mess.<br>
<br>
Oliver<br>
<br>
Curtis Raams wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:C6F396C4A0183F4D91F07BF87D09A58056CE6106@exchange.staff.ains.net.au"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">words
</pre>
<pre wrap="">
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
_______________________________________________
AusNOG mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net">AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog">http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>