[95915] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Abuse procedures... Reality Checks
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Rich Kulawiec)
Tue Apr 10 08:12:03 2007
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 08:09:28 -0400
From: Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org>
To: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <20070407.145134.701.978515@webmail15.lax.untd.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Sat, Apr 07, 2007 at 09:50:34PM +0000, 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.
After thinking it over: I partly-to-mostly agree. In principal, yes.
In practice, however, [some] negligent network operators have built
such long and pervasive track records of large-scale abuse that their
allocations can be classified into two categories:
1. Those that have emitted lots of abuse.
2. Those that are going to emit lots of abuse.
In such cases, I'm not inclined to wait for (2) to become reality.
---Rsk
