|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Call blocking, please...
Barry wants Sprint to block port 25 traffic from a Sprint customer to his ISP. On Mon, 6 Jan 1997, Sean Donelan wrote: > The phone company equivalent of Barry's request is call blocking, "beep, > boop, BEEP, The number you have dialed is blocked at the subscriber's > request." A major impetus for this feature was 'the' telephone company's > desire to get out of the abuse and harrassment complaint handling business. > The subscriber doesn't have to give a reason why they want the number > blocked, they just ask the phone company to do it. Due to the way SS7 > works, the blocked announcement (usually) comes from the telephone company > at the origin's location. > > BBNPlanet installs firewalls and filters for all sorts of customers > that don't want to recieve traffic from some sources. You don't need > a court order to install a firewall to block traffic, just the customer's > request. A traffic filter may be installed in any of several places, on > the destination customer's equipment, on the provider's equipment serving > the destination customer, at some intermediate point in the provider's > network, or in the provider's equipment serving the source customer. It > could also be placed in the source customer's equipment, but in most of > these cases we are dealing with an uncooperative source customer. > > There may be management reasons why an ISP doesn't want to fullfill a > customer's or non-customer's request to stop forwarding bits to/at them. > If you follow the rule used by the RBOC's managing the ATM NAP's, a PVC > may be terminated at the request of *either* subscriber. Their policies > cause an occasional routing blackhole, but don't seem to have opened > PacBell or Ameritech up to a lot of legal liability. And since the telco's > are extremely risk adverse, this is a pretty strong precedent. > > Maybe I'll add a section to my internet-draft on Responsible Internet > Service Provider Guidelines. > > - An ISP may stop forwarding traffic at the request of either the > source or destination. > > - Traffic forwarding filters should be symetrical, unless otherwise > requested by *both* the source and destination. This isn't exactly > what I want to say, the intent is to prevent people from using their > ISP as a shield while attacking a site that can't respond. But > most networks use asymtrical filters, e.g. anyone can FTP out, not > in. If you tell AOL you don't want mail from cyberpromo.com, you > shouldn't be able to mailbomb cyberpromo.com from AOL either. > > As always, a big concern is financial. Who should pay for traffic forwarding > filters? The prudish person who wants to keep the traffic out? Or the > annoying person who wants to bother as many sites as possible? So far the > net has had a policy, the person keeping the traffic out has to pay for > the firewall or cybernanny. > > - An ISP may charge the requestor a $100 processing fee (indexed to > the CPI) to install or remove a traffic forwarding filter. This > makes it profitable for an ISP to become a spammer's haven. > -- > Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO > Affiliation given for identification not representation > Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-604-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: [email protected] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - |