nanog mailing list archives
Re: de-peering for security sake
From: Dan Hollis <goemon () sasami anime net>
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2016 13:15:36 -0800 (PST)
On Sun, 17 Jan 2016, Doug Barton wrote:
On 1/17/2016 12:44 PM, bzs () theworld com wrote:Not gonna help. The same people who have no incentive to do the right thing now will still have no incentive to join the group you propose.We need an effective forum with effective participation perhaps eventually leading to signed contractual obligations agreed to by all parties.I've said it before, and it's an unpopular option, but the only way that this will change is to make it more expensive to do the wrong thing than it is to do the right thing.
I think it can happen without lawsuits. look at RBLs and spamhaus. a bit sad that spamhaus has to exist in order to motivate operators to clean up their cesspools, but it does work to a certain extent.
-Dan
Current thread:
- Re: de-peering for security sake, (continued)
- 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 Doug Barton (Jan 17)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Dan Hollis (Jan 17)
- Re: de-peering for security sake bzs (Jan 17)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Valdis . Kletnieks (Jan 17)
- Re: de-peering for security sake bzs (Jan 18)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Michael O'Connor (Jan 19)
- Re: de-peering for security sake bzs (Jan 19)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Colin Johnston (Jan 20)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Valdis . Kletnieks (Jan 16)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Owen DeLong (Jan 16)