[118396] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: CRTC rules on Traffic Management Practices
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joe Abley)
Wed Oct 21 13:10:19 2009
From: Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca>
In-Reply-To: <CC95AF41-C597-4730-9D9A-9EE0B8F6F1F9@hopcount.ca>
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 13:09:16 -0400
To: Michael Peddemors <michael@linuxmagic.com>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 2009-10-21, at 12:14, Joe Abley wrote:
> On 2009-10-21, at 12:03, Michael Peddemors wrote:
>
>> The email marketing lobby already got the legislation watered down
>> on the spam
>> front, but does this in essence say that ISP's are no longer
>> allowed to block
>> email content, viruses et al?
>
> No more null-routing targets in your own network as a DDoS
> mitigation technique?
Some better-informed person dropped me a note off-list, pointing me to
the following. On the face of it it seems like consideration for this
aspect has already been incorporated into the ruling.
>> ITMPs used for network security or employed temporarily to protect
>> network integrity
>>
>> 44.
>> The Commission notes that Canadian ISPs have used certain ITMPs
>> for the purposes of network security and integrity. Specifically,
>> these
>> ITMPs have been employed to protect users from network threats such
>> as
>> malicious software, spam, and distribution of illicit materials. In
>> the
>> Commission's view, such activities are unlikely to trigger
>> complaints or
>> concerns under the Act and are a necessary part of an ISP's network
>> operations.
>>
>> 45.
>> The Commission is therefore not addressing, in this decision,
>> ITMPs used only for the purpose of network security, nor those
>> employed
>> temporarily9 to address unpredictable traffic events (e.g. traffic
>> surges due to global events and failures on part of an ISP's
>> network) in
>> order to protect network integrity.
