On January 19, 2016 at 10:12 m...@es.net (Michael O'Connor) wrote: > Why do we believe network administrators can advocate perfectly for > customer access?
Which is why I was advocating for some sort of generally agreed upon standards and process written into contractual agreements. This doesn't mean that someone has any inherent right to a private company's (typically) resources, one could block whatever they please, or nothing. But when there's some agreement that there's been a consistent breech of agreed-upon standards of behavior which should be responded to by the broader community at least there'd be some guidance and process beyond just urging everyone else to "de-peer" some sites on an operations mailing list. The goal would be setting standards for what is reasonable to send (e.g., not DDoS), not what is received. > I couldn't control my own children's access without making us all > miserable. > > Nation state access control in a free country at the network layer is bound > to fail, way too many cats to herd. > > > > On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 2:31 PM, <b...@theworld.com> wrote: > > > > > On January 18, 2016 at 00:21 valdis.kletni...@vt.edu ( > > valdis.kletni...@vt.edu) wrote: > > > On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 19:39:52 -0500, b...@theworld.com said: > > > > How about if backed by an agreement with the 5 RIRs stating no new > > > > resource allocations or transfers etc unless a contract is signed and > > > > enforced? Or similar. > > > > > > Then they'd just resort to hijacking address space. > > > > > > Oh wait, they already do that and get away with it.... > > > > I think we're talking about two different problems, both valid. > > > > One is legitimate operators who probably mostly want to do the right > > thing but are negligent, disagree (perhaps with many one this list) on > > what is an actionable problem, etc. > > > > The other are those actors prone to criminality. > > > > I was addressing the first problem though I'd assert that progress on > > the first problem would likely yield progress on the second, or > > cooperation anyhow. > > > > > > > > (And a threat of withholding IP address space from long-haul providers > > isn't as > > > credible - they have much less need for publicly routed IP addresses > > than > > > either eyeball farms or content farms, so you'll have to find some > > other way to > > > motivate them to not accept a hijacked route announcement...) > > > > > > > No man is an island entire of himself -- John Donne. > > > > First one has to agree to the concept of creating a network based on > > contractual agreements. > > > > I gave some examples of how to encourage actors to enter into those > > contracts, my list wasn't intended to be exhaustive, it was intended > > to be an existence proof, some pressure points exist and are easy to > > understand even if not complete. > > > > Besides, why make the perfect the enemy of the good? If many, perhaps > > not all (or not at first), agreed to a common set of contractual > > obligations that would be progress, no? > > > > Is there even a document which describes what a "hijacked" net block > > is and why it is bad? Obvious? No, it is not obvious. The best one can > > say is there exist obvious cases. > > > > -- > > -Barry Shein > > > > Software Tool & Die | b...@theworld.com | > > http://www.TheWorld.com > > Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD > > The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo* > > > > > > -- > Michael O'Connor > ESnet Network Engineering > m...@es.net > 631 344-7410 -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | b...@theworld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*
