[193687] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: backbones filtering unsanctioned sites
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Christopher Morrow)
Sat Feb 11 05:29:19 2017
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <20170210190851.GN16526@sizone.org>
From: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 17:03:56 -0500
To: Ken Chase <math@sizone.org>
Cc: nanog list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 2:08 PM, Ken Chase <math@sizone.org> wrote:
> >"Abuse cannot not provide you a list of websites that may be
> encountering
> >reduced visibility via Cogent"
>
> They could, if they kept a list of forward lookups they had done to get IPs
>
i think you mean passive-dns .. which is a thing, and exists.
(mumble (passive total|farsight|deteque|....) mumble)
> that ended up in their blacklists. But just having the IPs it's impossible
> to
> get the whole list of possible hostnames that point at it (reverse records
> are
> singular, and often missing).
>
> Nonetheless, it'd be nice to know how a single IP got onto the list - and
> what
> Cogent's doing about situations where multiple other hostnames map onto the
> same ip.
>
>
it's totally possible that the list here is really just a court-order
addition, right? I can't imagine that there is a cogent employee just evily
twiddling pens and adding random ips to blacklists...
> I have clietns that are Cogent customers, I'd just like to get informed
> before
> I bring the hammer down.
>
>
it's worth noting that fairly much every service provider has a provision
like cogent's 'force majaure' clause which includes: '...any law, order,
regulation...'
so it seems safe to assume that there's some court order cogent reacted to
:( we should fight that problem upstream.
> /kc
> --
> Ken Chase - math@sizone.org Guelph/Toronto Canada
> Heavy Computing - Clued bandwidth, colocation and managed linux VPS @151
> Front St. W.
>
