North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
- From: Sam Thomas
- Date: Sat Feb 12 07:06:37 2000
On Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 10:35:57PM -0500, Paul Ferguson wrote:
> I hate to ask this, but can't bite my lip, given the
> fact that people are throwing lawyers at this stuff now.
it is a necessary evil that we settle this ourselves. because if we don't
take care of our own business, someone's going to step in and do it for us,
and we won't like it. imagine, if you will, a branch of the UN making
internet policy in the form of international law. this should be incentive
> Is it within the realm of possibility that ISP's will
> start to craft SLA's, peering & transit agreements, to
> include who is responsible for ingress filtering?
> I would think so.
IMHO, ISP's should take full positive control of all the traffic they
allow on their network, their route advertisements, and their responsiveness
to peers/customers. ultimately, when asked who is responsible for the
packets on my network, the answer is "me". it is obscene to think that
folks would write contracts in such a way as to avoid their implicit
responsibility for their own networks. like I said above, if we do not
take responsibility for our own networks, someone else will, and we won't
like the results.
> Also, if so, do you think that this would technically be
> effcient, given that the filters would actually be applied?
once folks get it through their thick skulls that this is something
that needed to happen yesteryear and give harsh stares to their vendors'
geeks, I'm sure someone will figure out a way to make it technically
efficient. <cliche>necessity is the mother of invention.</cliche> let
the word get out that there is an immediate need for devices that can
filter at very high capacity line speeds, and someone will figure out
how to make it work. even engineers are suceptible to greed. :-)
right now, this is probably not-so-feasable.