Schneier: ISPs should bear security burden

Wed Apr 27 19:47:51 UTC 2005

I have no problem with disconnecting known abusers.  However, there's
lots of other actions implied in the "ISP responsibility" described
that are things like filtering port 25, blocking NetBIOS, etc.
Some ISPs do this.

I'm all for having an AUP and/or TOS that allows you to disconnect
abusers.  When I was working for various ISPs, I personally disconnected
a number of such abusers.

However, IMHO, disconnecting abusers is a far cry from "Providing a
clean internet".

Owen

--On Wednesday, April 27, 2005 12:26 PM +0000 "Fergie (Paul Ferguson)"
<fergdawg at netzero.net> wrote:

> 
> None -- when you disconnect [correct, block, whatever]
> abusive end-systems in your administrative domain. Act
> locally, think globally.
> 
> In fact, an ISP in AUS just did this last week...
> 
> - ferg
> 
> 
> Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> 
> How much functionality are we going to destroy before we realize that
> you can't fix end-node problems in the transit network?
> 
> --
> "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson
>  Engineering Architecture for the Internet
>  fergdawg at netzero.net or fergdawg at sbcglobal.net
>  ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/
> 

-- 
If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20050427/c3c52c9b/attachment.sig>