nanog mailing list archives
RE: Abuse procedures... Reality Checks
From: Barry Shein <bzs () world std com>
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2007 19:11:41 -0400
Bingo. Read the note below again, it is the path to enlightenment, Shein's law of resources: Needs, no matter how dire or just, do not alone create the resources necessary to fulfill. On April 7, 2007 at 20:41 bonomi () mail r-bonomi com (Robert Bonomi) wrote:
From: "Frank Bulk" <frnkblk () iname com> Subject: RE: Abuse procedures... Reality Checks Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2007 16:20:59 -0500If 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.Sure, block that /29, but why block the /24, /20, or even /8? Perhaps your (understandable) frustration is preventing you from agreeing with me on this specific case. Because what you usually see is an IP from a /20 or larger and the network operators aren't dealing with it. In the example I gave it's really the smaller /29 that's the culprit, it sounds like you want to punish a larger group, perhaps as large as an AS, for the fault of smaller network.BLUNT QUESTIONS: *WHO* pays me to figure out 'which parts' of a provider's network are riddled with problems and 'which parts' are _not_? *WHO* pays me to do the research to find out where the end-user boundaries are? *WHY* should _I_ have to do that work -- If the 'upstream provider' is incapable of keeping _their_own_house_ clean, why should I spend the time trying to figure out which of their customers are 'bad guys' and which are not? A provider *IS* responsible for the 'customers it _keeps_'. And, unfortunately, a customer is 'tarred by the brush' of the reputation of it's provider.Smaller operators, like those that require just a /29, often don't have that infrastructure. Those costs, as I'm sure you aware, are passed on to companies like yourself that have to maintain their own network's security. Again, block them, I say, just don't swallow others up in the process.If the _UPSTREAM_ of that 'small operator' cannot 'police' its own customers, Why should _I_ absorb the costs that _they_ are unwilling to internalize? If they want to sell 'cheap' service, but not 'doing what is necessary', I see no reason to 'facilitate' their cut-rate operations. Those who buy service from such a provider, 'based on cost', *deserve* what they get, when their service "doesn't work as well" as that provided by the full-price competition. _YOUR_ connectivity is only as good as the 'reputation' of whomever it is that you buy connectivity from. You might want to consider _why_ the provider *keeps* that 'offensive' customer. There would seem to be only a few possible explanations: (1) they are 'asleep at the switch', (2) that customer pays enough that they can 'afford' to have multiple other customers who are 'dis-satisfied', or who may even leave that provider, (3) they aren't willing to 'spend the money' to run a clean operation. (_None_ of those seems like a good reason for _me_ to spend extra money 'on behalf of' _their_ clients.)
Current thread:
- Re: Abuse procedures... Reality Checks, (continued)
- Re: Abuse procedures... Reality Checks Florian Weimer (Apr 09)
- Re: Abuse procedures... Reality Checks Joel Jaeggli (Apr 09)
- Re: Abuse procedures... Reality Checks John R Levine (Apr 09)
- Re: Abuse procedures... Reality Checks Pete Templin (Apr 09)
- Re: Abuse procedures... Reality Checks John L (Apr 09)
- Re: Abuse procedures... Reality Checks Chris Owen (Apr 09)
- Re: Abuse procedures... Reality Checks Pete Templin (Apr 09)
- RE: Abuse procedures... Reality Checks Frank Bulk (Apr 09)
- Re: Abuse procedures... Reality Checks Chris Owen (Apr 09)
- Re: Abuse procedures... Reality Checks Chris Owen (Apr 07)
- Re: Abuse procedures... Reality Checks Valdis . Kletnieks (Apr 09)
- RE: Abuse procedures... Reality Checks michael.dillon (Apr 10)
- Re: Abuse procedures... Reality Checks Joseph S D Yao (Apr 10)