[80442] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Schneier: ISPs should bear security burden
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Dave Rand)
Sun May 1 13:19:45 2005
From: dlr@bungi.com (Dave Rand)
Date: Sun, 1 May 2005 10:19:03 -0700
In-Reply-To: "Jay R. Ashworth"'s message on May 1, 12:25.
To: "Jay R. Ashworth" <jra@baylink.com>,
North American Networking and Offtopic Gripes List <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
[In the message entitled "Re: Schneier: ISPs should bear security burden" on May 1, 12:25, "Jay R. Ashworth" writes:]
> Ok, so here's a question for your, Dave:
>
> do you have a procedure for entertaining requests to be excluded from
> your replies from people with legitimate needs to operate MTA's, who
> have been given (let us say) static addresses by their providers which
> fall within a range you understand to be dialup?
>
> (I'm assuming you include cable and DSL end-user address pools; this is
> the sort of thing I'm asking about.)
Of course, Jay.
First off, static addresses don't belong on the DUL (unless the ISP
chooses to list them).
Second, any address can be removed by the ISP (even if it is a /32 in
the middle of an otherwise all dynamic /16). End-users are directed
to have their ISP contact us, as we *do not* take the end-users word
for it.
A quick note to dul@mail-abuse.com will get it handled.
--
