I agree with Gadi. Everything which affects Internet stability (e.g. DNS
denial-of-service attacks) deserves attention of network operators. IMHO
it's time to think about a new NANOG AUP.
If, as Gadi says, "not all of us can handle all that an ISP would
care", all of us (network operators, sysadmins, CISSPs ;-)) MUST work
together (with the best of everyone's experience and knowledge) to
bring a cleaner, safer, faster Internet for everyone.
Marlon Borba, CISSP
Gadi Evron <ge@linuxbox.org> 14/2/2007 10:09:30 >>>
[...]
We may not care about phishing or this or that virus here, but we do
about
things we need to *deal with on our networks*. By we I obviously can't
mean all of us, but not all of us can handle all that an ISP would
care
about from a network standpoint. Some only care about BGP, others only
about DNS. Yet more others only about security. What we have here is a
clash of cultures with changing times.
Gadi.
The NANOG charter says that the people responsible for updating the AUP are those on the Steering Committee. If you have proposed revisions to the AUP, please send them to steering@nanog.org for consideration. If you want to engage in public debate about the AUP, please do it on the nanog-futures@nanog.org mailing list, or ask for time on the floor at the next community meeting, or both.
Second-guessing the MLC's interpretation of the AUP on this list is not productive, and is (in my opinion, although it's not my job to decide) off-topic. Anybody who feels that the MLC has acted inappropriately for some reason is very welcome to send their concerns to the SC at steering@nanog.org. However, raising those concerns on this list is also (in my opinion) off-topic.
Apologies for extending this thread by one more message; I do so in the hope that some of the energy on display here can be more appropriately directed. Reply-To set to nanog-futures@.
Joe