Re: Tier1 blackholing policy?

[Thomas Schmid]

Joel,

Am 30.04.2013 18:00, schrieb joel jaeggli:

On 4/30/13 8:23 AM, Thomas Schmid wrote:

On 30.04.2013 17:07, Chris Boyd wrote:

On Tue, 2013-04-30 at 10:59 -0400, ML wrote:

1) Do nothing - They're supposed deliver any and all bits
(Disregarding
a DoS or similiar situation which impedes said network)
2) Prefix filter - Don't be a party (at least in one direction) to the
bad actors traffic.

3 - Deliver all packets unless I've signed up for an enhanced security
offering?

of the internet (Tier2+) and not in the core.

right - I see this really as something that should be decided at the edge

You seem to have odd ideas about what it means to be a settlement free provider. Most of their customers are not smaller internet service providers.

1995 and I have *never* seen one of these guys blackholing




   Thomas

I know what it means to be a customer of $LargeGlobalISPthatsellsTransittootherISPs since single IPs on their own (and I'm not talking about RTB, botnet controllers that threaten to kill the internet etc.). Now since a few weeks we get regular complaints about this. So something has changed. The sensitive approach would really be to make this an opt-in service for their customers and not a default service without opt-out option. In times of CGN and hundrets or thousands of websites behind one IP, blocking addresses is not the right answer to the phishing problem.

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Kryptografische Unterschrift