[186591] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: de-peering for security sake
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Thu Dec 24 22:40:05 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <567C9AF3.7070207@satchell.net>
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2015 19:36:54 -0800
To: Stephen Satchell <list@satchell.net>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
> On Dec 24, 2015, at 17:25 , Stephen Satchell <list@satchell.net> =
wrote:
>=20
> On 12/24/2015 04:50 PM, Daniel Corbe wrote:
>> Let=E2=80=99s just cut off the entirety of the third world instead of =
having
>> a tangible mitigation plan in place.
>=20
> While you thing you are making a snarky response, it would be handy =
for end users to be able to turn on and off access to other countries =
retail. If *they* don't need access to certain third world countries, =
it would be their decision, not the operator's decision.
>=20
> For example, here on my little network we have no need for =
connectivity to much of Asia, Africa, or India. We do have need to talk =
to Europe, Australia, and some countries in South America.
Yes=E2=80=A6 Balkanization has been such a wonderful and useful strategy =
in the physical world, let=E2=80=99s bring it to cyberspace and we =
should be able to expect the same level of success=E2=80=A6
Oh, wait, that wouldn=E2=80=99t be so good. Maybe this should be =
rethought.
One of the definitions of insanity is doing the same thing over and over =
again, expecting different results. This would seem to me to fit that =
particular definition.
Owen
