|
Top-level
 @mattb @opendna @eff by the way, HE is not a tier 1 ISP — they purchase transit from Telia to reach Cogent, for example. IncogNET (the hosting provider used by KF) was also previously multihomed, but their other transit got terminated for the same reason — they refuse to follow industry standard practices, like enforcing a real AUP. 3 comments
@ariadne I’m curious: say IncogNET was multihomed, HE dropped the announce for KF and I was a single homed HE customer trying to access KF. Would I still be able to reach KF via HE-bought transit or would there be a situation like with IPv6 where HE cannot reach Cogent at all because they buy no v6 transit? @ariadne I ask this because in my view the only bad outcome from this scenario would be HE filtering the full IPv4 internet for their non-IncogNET customers. But if all they are doing is refusing to announce a single homed customer’s range, it’s a complete nothingburger (and even in the former case it’d just make me avoid HE as a single homed upstream (which is an awful idea to begin with, case in point Cogent over IPv6), not really look at it as an attack on the constitution) |
Gregory's Server
@ariadne Then I think HE should have threatened to do the same, and block IncogNET entirely if it didn't comply.
I think the eff position only about filtering in the middle of the chain, therefore blocking your direct customer is the correct action here. It also ensures the correct parties get involved in the fight. KF (or any other customer that could be involved in this type of filtering as no one here gives damn about KF) has no mutual contact or obligations with HE...