[48964] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: SPEWS?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Clayton Fiske)
Thu Jun 20 12:06:06 2002
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 09:05:31 -0700
From: Clayton Fiske <clay@bloomcounty.org>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.41.0206200838590.26229-100000@amethyst.nstc.com>; from sjsobol@JustThe.net on Thu, Jun 20, 2002 at 08:40:11AM -0400
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Thu, Jun 20, 2002 at 08:40:11AM -0400, Steven J. Sobol wrote:
>
> On Wed, 19 Jun 2002, Alex Rubenstein wrote:
>
> > Nevertheless, he was zapped. He had a /27, and
> > SPEWs listed the entire /24 surrounding it. When I asked about this, they
> > said, in not-so-many-words, that by doing this, punishing innocent
> > bystanders, that as long as the ISP noticed and fixed the issue, this was
> > essentially OK to do.
>
> I agree with that, *if* initial notifications to the ISP are ignored.
> Escalations are then in order, definitely.
I fail to see how blacklisting neighboring subnets (not associated with
the organization in question) instead of just the offending one is "in
order".
-c
