[168756] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: BCP38 [Was: Re: TWC (AS11351) blocking all NTP?]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Paul Ferguson)
Tue Feb 4 13:56:03 2014
Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2014 10:53:51 -0800
From: Paul Ferguson <fergdawgster@mykolab.com>
To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
In-Reply-To: <15487.1391539666@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Reply-To: fergdawgster@mykolab.com
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On 2/4/2014 10:47 AM, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Feb 2014 10:09:02 -0800, Paul Ferguson said:
>
>> I'd like to echo Jared's sentiment here -- collectively
>> speaking, service providers need to figure out a way to deal with
>> this issue, before some congresscritters start to try to
>> introduce legislation that will force you to to do it in a way
>> that no one will like.
>
> Can somebody explain to me why those who run eyeball networks are
> able to block outbound packets when the customer hasn't paid their
> bill, but can't seem to block packets that shouldn't be coming from
> that cablemodem?
>
> (And yes, I know that in the first case, it urges the customer to
> cough up the bucks, and in the second case, it's usually not a
> revenue generator)
>
It's a dichotomy that is... unexplainable for me personally.
- - ferg
- --
Paul Ferguson
VP Threat Intelligence, IID
PGP Public Key ID: 0x54DC85B2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
iF4EAREIAAYFAlLxNz8ACgkQKJasdVTchbJq6AEApzaaZ9PpPX30kUYAxsGZFzeV
WR98y6VBxlocQE2oQFkBANSa4m0/JOGv+PDQovI4xSkjaE/Ru0V8woagAs1hS1C0
=KAL8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
