[73034] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Research - Valid Data Gathering vs. Annoying Other
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Scott Weeks)
Fri Aug 6 18:50:36 2004
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2004 12:50:00 -1000 (HST)
From: Scott Weeks <surfer@mauigateway.com>
To: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <200408062005.i76K5wtq000971@host122.r-bonomi.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
: [[.. $ mount /dev/soapbox # you have been warned. ..]]
Yes...
: *HOW* is one supposed to tell a 'benign' probe from a 'hostile' one,
: when it is addressed to a machine that doesn't exist, or to a 'service'
: that doesn't exist on an existant machine?
Who cares? It's your network. If you don't want the traffic, block it.
Research, malicious, virii, or whatever.
: HOWEVER, that notwithstanding, *EVERY*ONE* gets reported to the responsible
: _network_operator_ -- as an 'apparent virus-infected machine on your network',
Waste of bandwidth. Borders on GWF.
: The reporting is mostly to help the other operators keep _their_ networks
: clean. And to get those machines off-line -- so that they cannot infect
There will never be enough fire in the world to make a lazy netadmin GUOTA
(Get Up Off Their A$$) It's a waste of bandwidth.
: This is one of two _good_ approaches. "Get Permission. *FIRST*"
In the old networks, but not now. That's silly in a globally connected
infrastructure.
: > How do you view the issue of experiments that probe random sites? Should
: > this be accepted as "reasonable", or should it be disallowed? Something
: > in between?
There ain't any better testbed that the real world; test away. If I don't
want them testing my network, I'll stop them. It's my network and I'll do
what I want with what I paid for.
scott
