nanog mailing list archives
Re: de-peering for security sake
From: Daniel Corbe <dcorbe () hammerfiber com>
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 2015 11:25:30 -0500
On Dec 25, 2015, at 9:18 AM, Mike Hammett <nanog () ics-il net> wrote: To the thread, not necessarily Daniel, if blocking countries\continents is a bad thing (not saying I disagree), how do you deal with the flood of trash? Just take it on the chin?
If you as an end user want to be the cyber-equivalent of a xenophobe because OMG BAD INTERNETS then be my guest. On the other hand, I’m a network operator so I don’t have the luxury of dictating to my users what they can and cannot reach.
The degree of splash damage by blocking this way will vary based upon what kind of network you are. Residential eyeballs? You could probably block most of a lot of things and people wouldn't notice or care, as long as it wasn't Google, Facebook, Netflix, etc.
As a residential ISP with many first and second generation American immigrants in my service footprint I can assure you this notion is patently false. People will definitely notice and care if they can’t communicate with their relatives and consume content in their home countries.
----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Daniel Corbe" <dcorbe () hammerfiber com> To: "Nick Hilliard" <nick () foobar org> Cc: "NANOG" <nanog () nanog org> Sent: Friday, December 25, 2015 8:11:55 AM Subject: Re: de-peering for security sakeOn Dec 25, 2015, at 7:14 AM, Nick Hilliard <nick () foobar org> wrote: Daniel Corbe wrote:Let’s just cut off the entirety of the third world instead of having a tangible mitigation plan in place.You mean, cut off Sweden, Ireland, Finland, Switzerland and Israel?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_WorldWhat an enormously silly idea. Seasons greetings to all, NickIt was a stupid idea even before you corrected me.
Current thread:
- Re: de-peering for security sake, (continued)
- 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)
- 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)