![nanog logo](/images/nanog-logo.png)
nanog mailing list archives
Re: de-peering for security sake
From: Mike Hammett <nanog () ics-il net>
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 2015 08:19:10 -0600 (CST)
How much is an acceptable standard to the community? Individual /32s ( or /64s)? Some tipping point where 50% of a /24 (or whatever it's IPv6 equivalent would be) has made your naughty list that you block the whole prefix? ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Owen DeLong" <owen () delong com> To: "Dan Hollis" <goemon () anime net> Cc: "Mike Hammett" <nanog () ics-il net>, "NANOG" <nanog () nanog org> Sent: Saturday, December 26, 2015 1:00:35 AM Subject: Re: de-peering for security sake
On Dec 25, 2015, at 22:16 , Dan Hollis <goemon () anime net> wrote: On Fri, 25 Dec 2015, Owen DeLong wrote:Merely because people are asleep at the switch does not give those of us in a position to understand the consequences license to abuse our position.At what point do you cut the wire? How abusive is acceptable?
IMHO, you never cut the wire. You may filter selectively, but cutting the wire comes with far more collateral damage than actual useful effect. Owen
Current thread:
- Re: de-peering for security sake, (continued)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Colin Johnston (Dec 26)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Owen DeLong (Dec 24)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Nick Hilliard (Dec 25)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Daniel Corbe (Dec 25)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Mike Hammett (Dec 25)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Stephen Satchell (Dec 25)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Daniel Corbe (Dec 25)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Daniel Corbe (Dec 25)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Owen DeLong (Dec 25)
- Message not available
- Re: de-peering for security sake Owen DeLong (Dec 25)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Mike Hammett (Dec 26)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Stephen Satchell (Dec 26)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Baldur Norddahl (Dec 26)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Mike Hammett (Dec 26)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Joe Abley (Dec 26)
- Re: de-peering for security sake William Waites (Dec 26)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Owen DeLong (Dec 26)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Matthew Petach (Dec 26)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Owen DeLong (Dec 26)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Valdis . Kletnieks (Dec 26)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Baldur Norddahl (Dec 26)