On 10/4/22 6:07 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
I think the point the other Mike was trying to make was that if
everyone policed their customers, this wouldn't be a problem. Since
some don't, something else needed to be tried.
Exactly. And that doesn't require an elaborate PKI. Who is allowed to
use what telephone numbers is an administrative issue for the ingress
provider to police. It's the equivalent to gmail not allowing me to
spoof whatever email address I want. The FCC could have required that
ages ago.
Mike
-----
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
Midwest-IX
http://www.midwest-ix.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From: *"Shane Ronan" <sh...@ronan-online.com>
*To: *"Michael Thomas" <m...@mtcc.com>
*Cc: *nanog@nanog.org
*Sent: *Monday, October 3, 2022 9:54:07 PM
*Subject: *Re: FCC chairwoman: Fines alone aren't enough (Robocalls)
The issue isn't which 'prefixes' I accept from my customers, but which
'prefixes' I accept from the people I peer with, because it's entirely
dynamic and without a doing a database dip on EVERY call, I have to
assume that my peer or my peers customer or my peers peer is doing the
right thing.
I can't simply block traffic from a peer carrier, it's not allowed, so
there has to be some mechanism to mark that a prefix should be
allowed, which is what Shaken/Stir does.
Shane
On Mon, Oct 3, 2022 at 7:05 PM Michael Thomas <m...@mtcc.com> wrote:
The problem has always been solvable at the ingress provider. The
problem was that there was zero to negative incentive to do that. You
don't need an elaborate PKI to tell the ingress provider which
prefixes
customers are allow to assert. It's pretty analogous to when
submission
authentication was pretty nonexistent with email... there was no
incentive to not be an open relay sewer. Unlike email spam, SIP
signaling is pretty easy to determine whether it's spam. All it
needed
was somebody to force regulation which unlike email there was always
jurisdiction with the FCC.
Mike
On 10/3/22 3:13 PM, Jawaid Bazyar wrote:
> We're talking about blocking other carriers.
>
> On 10/3/22, 3:05 PM, "Michael Thomas" <m...@mtcc.com> wrote:
>
> On 10/3/22 1:54 PM, Jawaid Bazyar wrote:
> > Because it's illegal for common carriers to block traffic
otherwise.
>
> Wait, what? It's illegal to police their own users?
>
> Mike
>
> >
> > On 10/3/22, 2:53 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Michael Thomas"
<nanog-bounces+jbazyar=verobroadband....@nanog.org on behalf of
m...@mtcc.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 10/3/22 1:34 PM, Sean Donelan wrote:
> > > 'Fines alone aren't enough:' FCC threatens to
blacklist voice
> > > providers for flouting robocall rules
> > >
> > >
https://www.cyberscoop.com/fcc-robocall-fine-database-removal/
> > >
> > > [...]
> > > “This is a new era. If a provider doesn’t meet its
obligations under
> > > the law, it now faces expulsion from America’s
phone networks. Fines
> > > alone aren’t enough,” FCC chairwoman Jessica
Rosenworcel said in a
> > > statement accompanying the announcement.
“Providers that don’t follow
> > > our rules and make it easy to scam consumers will
now face swift
> > > consequences.”
> > >
> > > It’s the first such enforcement action by the
agency to reduce the
> > > growing problem of robocalls since call ID
verification protocols
> > > known as “STIR/SHAKEN” went fully into effect this
summer.
> > > [...]
> >
> > Why did we need to wait for STIR/SHAKEN to do this?
> >
> > Mike
> >
>
>
