[32389] in North American Network Operators' Group
Summation (SMB filters)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Scott Call)
Mon Nov 20 19:22:29 2000
Message-ID: <3A19C171.7000109@devolution.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 16:27:29 -0800
From: Scott Call <scall@devolution.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: nanog@nanog.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
I've been reading through the impressive amount of feedback I recieved
on the issue of fitlering SMB traffic, so I wanted to share the results
of our actions.
The day I posted the first message to Nanog I blocked SMB on our Redback
customer aggregation routers (DSL customers only). In 24 hours we had
two requests to remove the block, and we did for those customers.
Over the next week we got maybe 3-5 more requests. Zero cancelations.
Our DSL customer base is 75-80% small office/home office DSL with one IP
address dynamic assigned at installation and then RFC 1918 space behind
a natting router.
I don't like filtering any traffic, but we do not have the time/staff to
school our customers on safe networking, mostly because our customers
are small and w/o any SA type staff.
-Scott
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Call | Perhaps the best way to keep kids from turning on
Router Geek | their classmates is to protect them in the first
Advanced Telcom Group| place, -jonkatz
