nanog mailing list archives
Re: Where are static bogon filters appropriate? was: 96.2.0.0/16 Bogons
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike () swm pp se>
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 21:54:06 +0100 (CET)
On Tue, 6 Mar 2007, Sean Donelan wrote:
Isn't this true of everything (bad source addresses, worms, abuse, etc). Does hiding/ignoring the problem just makes it worse because there is no incentive to fix the problem while it is still a small problem? If it isn't important enough to bother the customer, why bother to fix it?
Let's take a concrete example:Customer gets hacked, one of their boxen starts spewing traffic with spoofed addresses. The way I understand your solution is to automatically shut their port and disrupt all their traffic, and have them call customer support to get any further.
Do you really think this is a good solution?I don't see any customer with a choice continuing having a relationship with me if I treat them like that. It will cost me and them too much.
So instead I just drop their spoofed traffic and if they call and say that their line is slow, I'll just say it's full and they can themselves track down the offending machine and shut it off to solve the problem.
-- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike () swm pp se
Current thread:
- RE: Where are static bogon filters appropriate? was: 96.2.0.0/16 Bogons, (continued)
- RE: Where are static bogon filters appropriate? was: 96.2.0.0/16 Bogons Eric Ortega (Mar 02)
- Re: Where are static bogon filters appropriate? was: 96.2.0.0/16 Bogons Steven M. Bellovin (Mar 02)
- Re: Where are static bogon filters appropriate? was: 96.2.0.0/16 Bogons Daniel Senie (Mar 02)
- Re: Where are static bogon filters appropriate? was: 96.2.0.0/16 Bogons Sean Donelan (Mar 03)
- Re: Where are static bogon filters appropriate? was: 96.2.0.0/16 Bogons Peter Dambier (Mar 03)
- RE: Where are static bogon filters appropriate? was: 96.2.0.0/16 Bogons Barry Greene (bgreene) (Mar 04)
- Re: Where are static bogon filters appropriate? was: 96.2.0.0/16 Bogons Mikael Abrahamsson (Mar 03)
- Re: Where are static bogon filters appropriate? was: 96.2.0.0/16 Bogons Sean Donelan (Mar 04)
- Re: Where are static bogon filters appropriate? was: 96.2.0.0/16 Bogons Mikael Abrahamsson (Mar 06)
- Re: Where are static bogon filters appropriate? was: 96.2.0.0/16 Bogons Sean Donelan (Mar 06)
- Re: Where are static bogon filters appropriate? was: 96.2.0.0/16 Bogons Mikael Abrahamsson (Mar 06)
- Re: Where are static bogon filters appropriate? was: 96.2.0.0/16 Bogons Valdis . Kletnieks (Mar 06)
- Re: Where are static bogon filters appropriate? was: 96.2.0.0/16 Bogons Mikael Abrahamsson (Mar 06)
- Re: Where are static bogon filters appropriate? was: 96.2.0.0/16 Bogons Mark Radabaugh (Mar 06)
- Re: Where are static bogon filters appropriate? was: 96.2.0.0/16 Bogons Sean Donelan (Mar 09)
- Re: Where are static bogon filters appropriate? was: 96.2.0.0/16 Bogons Roland Dobbins (Mar 02)
- 123.0.0.0/8 from AS7643 (was - Re: Where are static bogon filters appropriate? was: 96.2.0.0/16 Bogons) william(at)elan.net (Mar 02)
- Re: Where are static bogon filters appropriate? was: 96.2.0.0/16 Bogons Jason Frisvold (Mar 04)