I think depeering is a bit over the top for this situation, but I wouldn't blink at nullrouting the prefix in question at my cores... :) I guess the big question is, is there anyone (other than those profiting directly from CWS) that would complain if a provider were to do such a thing... -C On Jul 12, 2004, at 1:34 PM, Daniel Golding wrote:
On 7/12/04 12:33 PM, "Michel Py" <michel@arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us> wrote:
Paul Vixie wrote: or, to put it in terms you can all understand: "why does that provider's upstream still have bgp peers?"
Maybe said upstream does not want to deal with TROs and legal issues? CWS is not illegal as of today.
CWS isn't illegal. On the other hand, there is no legal exposure from depeering providers who take on these customers. TRO's and such would only come into effect if the provider's peers failed to observe the contractually obligated notice period (30-60 days, normally).
Some peering contracts specify that behaviors that endanger a network or its users allow for immediate disconnection. Its a bit of a stretch to invoke this for a spyware site.
Depeering has been threatened as an anti-spam measure - it is reasonable effective. This hasn't been extended to spyware, as it doesn't get the same level of press.
If you contact a provider who is hosting malware, and they refuse to remove it or disconnect the hoster, you could always try contacting their peers and cc:ing the offending provider. End-user networks (DSL, Cable, dial-up), are particularly sensitive to software that might harm their users.
if you give people the means to hurt you, and they do it, and you take no action except to continue giving them the means to hurt you, and they take no action except to keep hurting you, then one of the ways you can describe the situation is "it isn't scaling well."
Could not agree more.
Michel.
-- Daniel Golding Network and Telecommunications Strategies Burton Group