North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

RE: Abuse procedures... Reality Checks

  • From: william(at)elan.net
  • Date: Sat Apr 07 18:27:05 2007



On Sat, 7 Apr 2007, Frank Bulk wrote:

If they're properly SWIPed why punish the ISP for networks they don't even
operate, that obviously belong to their business customers?

All ISPs have AUPs that prohibit spam (or at least I hope all of you do) though are enforced at some places better then at others... But the point is that each and every customer ISP is responsible for following that AUP and is responsible for making sure their customers follow it as well. So to answer you the view is that even if ISP do not operate the network by providing services and ip addresses they in fact basically do operate in on higher level and are partially directly responsible for what happens there including enforcing its AUP on its sub-ISP or business customer (and making sure they enforce same AUP provisions on their customers). Chain of responsibility if you like to think of it that way...

And if the granular blocking is effectively shutting down the abuse from that sub-allocated block, didn't the network operator succeed in protecting
themselves? Or is the netop looking to the ISP to push back on their
customers to clean up their act? Or is the netop trying to teach the ISP a
lesson?


Of course, it doesn't hurt to copy the ISP or AS owner for abuse issues from
a sub-allocated block -- you would hope that ISPs and AS owners would want
to have clean customers.

Yes, of course blocking of larger ISP block would happen only after trying
to notify ISP of the problem for each of every one of those subblocks did not lead to any results.


Frank

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-nanog@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-nanog@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
william(at)elan.net
Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2007 5:58 PM
To: Fergie
Cc: rsk@xxxxxxx; nanog@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Abuse procedures... Reality Checks

On Sat, 7 Apr 2007, Fergie wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

- -- Rich Kulawiec <rsk@xxxxxxx> wrote:

1. There's nothing "indiscriminate" about it.

I often block /24's and larger because I'm holding the *network*
operators
responsible for what comes out of their operation.  If they can't hold
the outbound abuse down to a minimum, then I guess I'll have to make
up for their negligence on my end.  I don't care why it happens -- they
should have thought through all this BEFORE plugging themselves in
and planned accordingly.  ("Never build something you can't control.")

I would have to respectfully disagree with you. When network operators do due diligence and SWIP their sub-allocations, they (the sub-allocations) should be authoritative in regards to things like RBLs.

$.02,

Yes. But the answer is that it also depends how many other cases like this exist from same operator. If they have 16 suballocations in /24 but say 5 of them are spewing, I'd block /24 (or larger) ISP block. The exact % of bad blocks (i.e. when to start blocking ISP) depends on your point of view and history with that ISP but most in fact do held ISPs partially responsible.

-- William Leibzon Elan Networks william@xxxxxxxx