[95858] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Abuse procedures... Reality Checks
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Fergie)
Sat Apr 7 18:42:54 2007
From: "Fergie" <fergdawg@netzero.net>
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2007 22:32:55 GMT
To: william@elan.net
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
- -- "william(at)elan.net" <william@elan.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 7 Apr 2007, Fergie wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>Yes. But the answer is that it also depends how many other cases like
>this exist from same operator. If they have 16 suballocations in /24
>but say 5 of them are spewing, I'd block /24 (or larger) ISP block.
Why? When you can block on more specific prefixes? This just
doesn't make sense to me.
>The exact % of bad blocks (i.e. when to start blocking ISP) depends
>on your point of view and history with that ISP but most in fact do
>held ISPs partially responsible.
Indeed -- your point of view. Which I would argue is unfair
and not "due diligence".
- - ferg
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Desktop 9.6.0 (Build 214)
wj8DBQFGGBv8q1pz9mNUZTMRAuufAKC+/0DwFmrVA15UZaNib02GgR25MgCdFlu3
45XhfZTvgE+Oaiij4LoLNh0=3D
=3DMO1u
-----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/
