peering@onecall.net
References: <AEEPICGDOHNHFODBPFCLOEHBCPAA.tfrancis@verio.net>
Rick,
Please accept this as 30-days notice that Verio will turn down
peering
with OneCall unless LSR is permanently enabled on on the peering
routers
that border Verio. I'm sorry if your interpretation of the
requirement
in our peering policy is different than ours, but the following
clause
is clear:
Verio reserves the right to not peer with anyone as Verio sees
fit and
to terminate any peering at any time with 30 days notice.
Warm Regards,
-Doug Junkins
VP, IP Engineering
Verio, Inc.
so what's your point, other than you seem to not be meeting their peering
ts and cs?
randy
Ok, only one public response to my error...
I would respectfully decline the position of
security manager at Verio.
:*
Randy Bush wrote:
... With yet another "update" to the DDos pages.
http://grc.com/dos/intro.htm
and I quote:
* ISP's are responsible for preventing the transportation of
obviously-fraudulent
and easily blocked Internet traffic.
Because the responsibility for a safe and secure Internet is just as
distributed as the
Internet's technology, we must work together to bring about the required
changes.
Unfortunately, today we see only the operation of blind self-interest from
Microsoft and the Internet's ISP's
As I seem to recall several members of this list offered him help (and were
rebuffed) perhaps they would like to comment? He seems increasingly lost in
a fantasy world where everyone is out to get him....
David Howe wrote:
... With yet another "update" to the DDos pages.
http://grc.com/dos/intro.htm
and I quote:
> * ISP's are responsible for preventing the transportation of
obviously-fraudulent
> and easily blocked Internet traffic.
>
> Because the responsibility for a safe and secure Internet is just as
distributed as the
> Internet's technology, we must work together to bring about the required
changes.
>
> Unfortunately, today we see only the operation of blind self-interest from
> Microsoft and the Internet's ISP's
As I seem to recall several members of this list offered him help (and were
rebuffed) perhaps they would like to comment? He seems increasingly lost in
a fantasy world where everyone is out to get him....
My feeling is that he's missing some clues regarding the necessary
realities of the situation. Its not so much a matter of laziness,
avarice, or incompetence as much as it is a matter of the internet
working the way it is supposed to. There is no way an ISP could block
all, or even most, of the fraudulent traffic that is traversing their
networks without resorting to draconian tactics that would, possibly,
drive them out of business. There are certain steps they can take
(source address filtering) which they should be doing anyway but this
network has been designed to be a leaky seive.
I'm also sure that XP might increase the number of spoofed packets
running through the network. If that spurs more ISPs to use source
address filtering them thats a good thing. Even if they don't it is
possible to track down where a spoofed IP is coming from - its more of a
social engineering issue than a technical one.
... With yet another "update" to the DDos pages.
http://grc.com/dos/intro.htm
and I quote:
Yet more proof that Gibson wants nothing more than media attention. After
the attacks that he first experienced, as I mentioned before here, we
offered our assistance and cooperation in the termination of Dynamic DNS
accounts for people who run these trojans and connect them to their IRC
servers. To quote myself from my e-mail to Steve:
I'd be more than happy to terminate this account, and open a continuing
dialog with you if you'd be interested in passing along information of
other accounts under our service being used for these purposes. It may be
a losing fight, but at least we can try.
His response to me began:
"I hate to give you a canned reply Tim, but I really have no choice.
Here's what I'm sending back to most people ..."
And was followed with a canned response, which included:
"Therefore, I am working hard to put this whole whacky adventure behind me
and to get on with the work I already had planned. A large part of me
would dearly love to be distracted, but I just can't let the happen."
How does that add up with the fact that he continues updating his page?
He continues lambasting ISPs which won't cooperate with him, but pays no
heed to us, a service provider offering our help and partnership in the
battle against these abusers. I just can't get my mind around this in any
way but "Gibson is an attention-starved whacko who doesn't understand the
first thing about what he's trying to talk about." I keep waiting for it
to add up, and it fails to do so. Gibson just wants to flame everyone in
sight, ignore the facts, because he knows it'll get him the attention he
wants.
Tim Wilde