nanog mailing list archives
Re: de-peering for security sake
From: Ca By <cb.list6 () gmail com>
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2016 05:43:56 -0800
On Saturday, January 16, 2016, Rich Kulawiec <rsk () gsp org> wrote:
On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 11:44:10PM +0000, Colin Johnston wrote:We really need to ask if China and Russia for that matter will not take abuse reports seriously why allow them to network to the internet ?One could ask the exact same question about Amazon -- which, as of the moment, is the worst spam-supporting operation on the planet: https://www.spamhaus.org/statistics/networks/ Are they merely incompetent? negligent? stupid? lazy? Or are they taking payoffs and bribes from spammers? Of course from outside there's no way to know. But this is not how responsible, ethical, professional operations behave: those operations promptly read, analyze, answer, and act on every single abuse report that they get. ---rsk
I really like what spamhaus has done here. I see a great deal of folks on nanog clamoring to buy ddos gear. Packets are starting to become like spam email, where 90% are pure rubbish, and us good guys have to spend a lot of money and time sorting signal from noise. Can Cloudflare, Akamai, and the others in the ddos protection racket please do as spamhaus has done? It would really be a great service to aggregate and release high level data on where these ddos bots are hosted. The pessimistic side of me believes cloudflare and akamai want the internet to be choked with bots such that everyone must pay their toll, so the information on the bots is a trade secret... But please prove me wrong so we can drive higher accountability on the internet.
Current thread:
- Re: de-peering for security sake Richard Hesse (Jan 02)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Randy Bush (Jan 02)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: de-peering for security sake Rich Kulawiec (Jan 16)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Ca By (Jan 16)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Mike Hammett (Jan 16)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Rich Kulawiec (Jan 16)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Patrick W. Gilmore (Jan 16)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Ca By (Jan 16)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Owen DeLong (Jan 16)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Valdis . Kletnieks (Jan 16)
- Re: de-peering for security sake bzs (Jan 17)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Dan Hollis (Jan 17)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Ca By (Jan 17)
- Re: de-peering for security sake bzs (Jan 17)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Ca By (Jan 16)