|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 20:23:44 -0800 (PST) From: Dan Hollis <goemon@sasami.anime.net> To: Daniel Senie <dts@senie.com> cc: Phil Howard <phil@whistler.intur.net>, nanog@merit.edu In-Reply-To: <369AC1E1.390F58B0@senie.com> On Mon, 11 Jan 1999, Daniel Senie wrote: > > Then we need to re-classify having an open broadcast amplifier as an > > abuse. If we can get upstreams and backbones to give a formal 30 day > > notice, then start cutting lines ... > I think this could easily be classified as abuse or abuse through > negligence (reckless endangerment?). Provider contracts should specify > that downstreams must deal with ingress filtering and must ensure their > networks will not respond to directed broadcasts from outside. Speaking of negligence, I am disappointed at the backbones who continue to route rfc1918 addresses, and wacko addresses like 0.0.0.0 and 255.255.255.255. It is REALLY all that much to ask you guys to null0 route these networks? Sheesh. -Dan
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |