Re: Abuse procedures... Reality Checks

["Fergie" <fergdawg () netzero net>]

-----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=
=MO1u
-----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/