nanog mailing list archives
Re: de-peering for security sake
From: Clayton Zekelman <clayton () mnsi net>
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 2015 17:12:04 -0500
Just an off the cuff thought but if the format of the abuse messages could be standardized so handling them would be semi-automated somewhat like ACNS notices, it might improve response. Maybe such a format already exists and just isn't widely used. Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 25, 2015, at 4:52 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike () swm pp se> wrote: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 machinesThis 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 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)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Owen DeLong (Dec 24)