[107364] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: GLBX De-Peers Intercage [Was: RE: Washington Post: Atrivo/Intercag
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Justin Shore)
Tue Sep 2 18:08:05 2008
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2008 17:07:13 -0500
From: Justin Shore <justin@justinshore.com>
To: Paul Ferguson <fergdawg@netzero.net>
In-Reply-To: <20080901.014812.9559.0@webmail03.vgs.untd.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Paul Ferguson wrote:
> My next question to the peanut gallery is: What do you
> suggest we should do on other hosting IP blocks are are continuing
> to host criminal activity, even in the face of abuse reports, etc.?
>
> Seriously -- I think this is an issue which needs to be addressed
> here. ISPs cannot continue to sweep this issue under the proverbial
> carpet.
>
> Is this an issue that network operations folk don't really care
> about?
IMHO policy should only be dictated by the edge, never upstream of that
point. Now whether the edge is defined as the edge provider or the
actual end-user is up for debate. I don't want my upstreams to make a
decision what my SP and thus my customers can get to. My customers
can't contact my upstream and argue for listing or delisting a given IP
like they can with me. They can't speak with their dollars to my
upstream like that can with me, their edge provider. Then again should
I as the edge provider filter for my customers? Value-add service or a
bonus service? It depends on your point of view.
Justin
