Just because they were presented with the information doesn't mean they understand.

It's our job as operators to get involved and help them understand as best as can be done, so that the proposals are as well informed as possible.
 
Just because they understand doesn't mean they execute based on that information.

No set of rules will ever be perfectly executed or implemented. Doesn't matter if it's a government regulation or internal company rule. You try to start from a good place, learn what works and what doesn't, and adjust accordingly. 


On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 11:11 AM Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:
Just because they were presented with the information doesn't mean they understand.
Just because they understand doesn't mean they execute based on that information.



-----
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com

Midwest-IX
http://www.midwest-ix.com

From: "Job Snijders via NANOG" <nanog@nanog.org>
To: "Josh Luthman" <josh@imaginenetworksllc.com>
Cc: "NANOG [nanog@nanog.org]" <nanog@nanog.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2024 3:20:54 PM
Subject: Re: Should FCC look at SS7 vulnerabilities or BGP vulnerabilities

On Thu, May 16, 2024 at 04:05:21PM -0400, Josh Luthman wrote:
> Now do you think they're going to properly understand what an SS7 or
> vulnerability is?

The FCC organised several sessions (private and public) where they
invited knowledgeable people from this community to help edifice them on
what BGP is and what risks exist.

https://www.fcc.gov/news-events/events/2023/07/bgp-security-workshop

Watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQhoNX2Q0aM to see our very own
Tony Tauber looking sharp in a nice suit! :-)

FCC staff attended NANOG & IETF meetings to further explore and discuss
the problem space in the hallway track. If anything, I think the FCC
made a proper effort to connect with various stakeholders and learn from
them.

Kind regards,

Job