|
Top-level
@ariadne @eff if they’re not announcing that they’re a route there, then I have no issues at all with them doing this, though it sounds like they should also enforce their TOS on their customers. It’s ordinary for ISPs to refuse to announce routes on these sorts of issues. If they are announcing they’re a route but are blackholing traffic, that’s perhaps something to argue about but not for any of the reasons that the EFF objects. 3 comments
@ariadne @eff oh, it’s even dumber than I thought then. Either KT or SKTelecom, and I forget which, is very bad about refusing to accept routes for competing ISPs, resulting in what should be a route like ICN->NRT->SJC turning into a route like ICN->BUR->NRT->SJC. It’s so bad that we have a workaround for Korea customers that uses AWS’s network because whichever company it is will accept that route. This is entirely ordinary for HE to do. This is a nothingburger. @ariadne @eff what concerns me is that the way this EFF article is written makes me feel like maybe the author is upset about the target of the unrouting more so than the action taken. Since they’re never really clear what action HE took. It doesn’t sound like it’s actually censorship and instead sounds like they’re refusing to platform something which has a long defined mechanism to announce to the world you refuse to platform. |
Gregory's Server
@ZiggyTheHamster @eff they are just not accepting the route. it’s not their problem that IncogNET is single-homed.