North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
RE: ISPs as content-police or method-police
> On Mon, 20 Nov 2000 09:21:10 MST, Ehud Gavron said: > > It is clear (to me) that customers who get a connection > > to the net do NOT want that connection limited nor > > censored. > > Unfortunately, it's NOT clear that this is the case. The average customer > just THINKS they want something. The question of whether it's something > actually reasonable to do is a different issue.... What doesn't make sense in that argument is why you couldn't just simply upsell the customer to a managed fw solution etc if that's the concern. Educate them, and let them decide based on the education they received. > Remember - the *reason* this is a point worth discussing at *ALL* is because > such a large percentage of customers don't have a CLUE - if (for instance) > 98% of the shops had enough clue to close down open shares, we'd > not be seeing > so many scans for them. Well, again, I don't believe in 'censoring' traffic by default. I do believe in offering options for those people who decide to do so and can't/don't want to do it themselves. > I suspect that if a large percentage of Tier 1/2 carriers actually filtered > ports 137 through 139, we'd not be seeing anywhere near the amount > of QAZ and > similar activity. I wouldn't be so sure, particularly because of the legal exposure... > And as has been pointed out, you can ALWAYS punch a hole > in the filter for customers who like to live risky, or they can find other > ways to tunnel their packets. At SP scale? Think again. Cheers, Chris -- Christian Kuhtz <[email protected]> -wk, <[email protected]> -hm Sr. Architect, Engineering & Architecture, BellSouth.net, Atlanta, GA, U.S. "I speak for myself only."