nanog mailing list archives
Re: de-peering for security sake
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike () swm pp se>
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 2015 22:52:12 +0100 (CET)
On Fri, 25 Dec 2015, Colin Johnston wrote:
why do the chinese network folks never reply and action abuse reports, normal slow speed network abuse is tolerated, but not high speed deliberate abuse albeit compromised machines
This is not a chinese problem, this is a general ISP problem. Most ISPs do not respond to abuse reports.
-- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike () swm pp se
Current thread:
- Re: de-peering for security sake, (continued)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Colin Johnston (Dec 25)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Daniel Corbe (Dec 24)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Stephen Satchell (Dec 24)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Baldur Norddahl (Dec 24)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Lee (Dec 25)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Baldur Norddahl (Dec 25)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Colin Johnston (Dec 25)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Baldur Norddahl (Dec 25)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Colin Johnston (Dec 25)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Owen DeLong (Dec 25)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Mikael Abrahamsson (Dec 25)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Clayton Zekelman (Dec 25)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Hugo Slabbert (Dec 25)
- Re: de-peering for security sake TR Shaw (Dec 25)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Andrew Kirch (Dec 25)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Jared Mauch (Dec 26)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Suresh Ramasubramanian (Dec 24)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Owen DeLong (Dec 24)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Suresh Ramasubramanian (Dec 24)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Hugo Slabbert (Dec 26)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Colin Johnston (Dec 26)