[95853] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Abuse procedures... Reality Checks
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Fergie)
Sat Apr 7 17:53:52 2007
From: "Fergie" <fergdawg@netzero.net>
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2007 21:50:34 GMT
To: rsk@gsp.org
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
- -- Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org> wrote:
1. There's nothing "indiscriminate" about it.
>I often block /24's and larger because I'm holding the *network* operat=
ors
>responsible for what comes out of their operation. If they can't hold
>the outbound abuse down to a minimum, then I guess I'll have to make
>up for their negligence on my end. I don't care why it happens -- they=
>should have thought through all this BEFORE plugging themselves in
>and planned accordingly. ("Never build something you can't control.")
I would have to respectfully disagree with you. When network
operators do due diligence and SWIP their sub-allocations, they
(the sub-allocations) should be authoritative in regards to things
like RBLs.
$.02,
- - ferg
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Desktop 9.6.0 (Build 214)
wj8DBQFGGBIlq1pz9mNUZTMRAkLuAJ4sjBnZ1IF4FBjFvMn4NlgK7lZysgCg3gT2
8e9PswhChgNhDHnCsY+Yf9M=3D
=3DoJaW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
"Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson
Engineering Architecture for the Internet
fergdawg(at)netzero.net
ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/
