[120484] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Article on spammers and their infrastructure
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joel Jaeggli)
Tue Dec 22 17:55:40 2009
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 14:54:45 -0800
From: Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
To: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <75cb24520912221439x1d254088r66e3a28571ae8124@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Christopher Morrow wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Jon Lewis <jlewis@lewis.org> wrote:
>
>
>> Should US based networks be willing to route RIPE "ASSIGNED PA" space
>> customers provide?
Are any of your customers multinationals?
> this is an interesting question, which when I worked for an ISP I
> always wondered about. In fact, when we'd see solely based US
> customers asking for this sort of thing it often meant shortly there
> after we'd see complaints of TOS/AUP violations. There doesn't seem to
> be a hard/fast rule about this though (the 'is it right to permit this
> activity'), but there sure is quite a bit of it going on, eh?
Last two companies I have worked with, through a combination of organic
growth, aquistion and partnership have a rather complex mix of PA,
Legacy, RIR assignments in 4 regions, LIR assignments, and so forth. it
would be fairly normal in the course of service delivery to customers to
advertise prefixes obtained in one region in one or more other regions.
One of these entities has a global IP backbone, the other glues it
altogether with vpns, appart from scale they're not really that different.
> -Chris
>
