[95905] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Abuse procedures... Reality Checks
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Azinger, Marla)
Mon Apr 9 17:27:37 2007
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2007 17:11:28 -0400
From: "Azinger, Marla" <marla.azinger@frontiercorp.com>
To: <michael.dillon@bt.com>, <nanog@merit.edu>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
I have to disagree. SWIP is not meaningless. =20
In my company some functions related to sending a SWIP are automated, =
but my company has people on staff who know that it is happening and =
what it means.
And I talk with plenty of other companies that fall into the same boat. =
In short I find this one comment below to be argumentive and full of =
conjecture.
Regards
Marla Azinger
Frontier Communications
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of
michael.dillon@bt.com
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 1:39 PM
To: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: RE: Abuse procedures... Reality Checks
> 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.
How do you tell when they have actually done "due diligence".
Existence of a SWIP record is essentially meaningless in this day and
age. Many people do them automatically and there may well be nobody left
on staff who knows that this is happening or what it all means.
--Michael Dillon
