[168771] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: BCP38 [Was: Re: TWC (AS11351) blocking all NTP?]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (goemon@anime.net)
Tue Feb 4 15:23:59 2014
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2014 12:21:49 -0800 (PST)
From: goemon@anime.net
To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
In-Reply-To: <15487.1391539666@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Tue, 4 Feb 2014, 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)
>
The only way this is going to get fixed is to make it more expensive to
originate abuse than it is to block it.
The only thing management is going to pay attention to is their
pocketbooks.
-Dan
