[119085] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Congress may require ISPs to block fraud sites H.R.3817
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Dan Golding)
Fri Nov 6 09:59:17 2009
From: Dan Golding <dgolding@tier1research.com>
To: Steven Bellovin <smb@cs.columbia.edu>
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 08:58:35 -0600
In-Reply-To: <6EE2A54A-E255-471F-9D29-18237D19E991@cs.columbia.edu>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Nov 5, 2009, at 7:24 PM, Steven Bellovin wrote:
>
> On Nov 5, 2009, at 5:56 PM, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 16:40:09 CST, Bryan King said:
>>> Did I miss a thread on this? Has anyone looked at this yet?
>>
>>> `(2) INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS- Any Internet service provider
>>> that, on
>>> or through a system or network controlled or operated by the =20
>>> Internet
>>> service provider, transmits, routes, provides connections for, or
>>> stores
>>> any material containing any misrepresentation of the kind
>>> prohibited in
>>> paragraph (1) shall be liable for any damages caused thereby,
>>> including
>>> damages suffered by SIPC, if the Internet service provider--
>>
>> "routes" sounds the most dangerous part there. Does this mean that =20
>> if
>> we have a BGP peering session with somebody, we need to filter it?
>
> Also "transmits". (I'm impressed that someone in Congress knows the
> word "routes"....)
Don't get hung up on the wording. A DNS blackhole list will do the =20
trick as well. I don't think border ACLs on routers will be necessary.
- Daniel Golding
