> > Honestly the root of a lot of the problems here is the bellheaded > insistence of still using E.164 addresses in the first place. With SIP they > are complete legacy and there is no reason that my "telephone number" can't > be m...@mtcc.com. >
You can do that all you want. You just don't get to interact with the PSTN. On Tue, Oct 4, 2022 at 2:53 PM Michael Thomas <m...@mtcc.com> wrote: > > On 10/4/22 11:31 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: > > What's regulated or implemented is rarely the best course of action. Does > this cause more good or harm? > > > Honestly the root of a lot of the problems here is the bellheaded > insistence of still using E.164 addresses in the first place. With SIP they > are complete legacy and there is no reason that my "telephone number" can't > be m...@mtcc.com. In fact, that would be a huge win since I could just > use my email address book to make a call. You could tell that STIR/SHAKEN > really went off the rails when it has heuristics on how to scrape E.164 > addresses in the From: field. At this point we should be mostly ignoring > legacy signaling, IMO. > > > Mike > > > > > ----- > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > Midwest-IX > http://www.midwest-ix.com > > ------------------------------ > *From: *"Shane Ronan" <sh...@ronan-online.com> <sh...@ronan-online.com> > *To: *"Michael Thomas" <m...@mtcc.com> <m...@mtcc.com> > *Cc: *"Mike Hammett" <na...@ics-il.net> <na...@ics-il.net>, > nanog@nanog.org > *Sent: *Tuesday, October 4, 2022 1:21:41 PM > *Subject: *Re: FCC chairwoman: Fines alone aren't enough (Robocalls) > > Except the cost to do the data dips to determine the authorization isn't > "free". > > On Tue, Oct 4, 2022 at 2:18 PM Michael Thomas <m...@mtcc.com> wrote: > >> >> On 10/4/22 6:07 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: >> >> I think the point the other Mike was trying to make was that if everyone >> policed their customers, this wouldn't be a problem. Since some don't, >> something else needed to be tried. >> >> >> Exactly. And that doesn't require an elaborate PKI. Who is allowed to use >> what telephone numbers is an administrative issue for the ingress provider >> to police. It's the equivalent to gmail not allowing me to spoof whatever >> email address I want. The FCC could have required that ages ago. >> >> >> Mike >> >> >> ----- >> Mike Hammett >> Intelligent Computing Solutions >> http://www.ics-il.com >> >> Midwest-IX >> http://www.midwest-ix.com >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From: *"Shane Ronan" <sh...@ronan-online.com> <sh...@ronan-online.com> >> *To: *"Michael Thomas" <m...@mtcc.com> <m...@mtcc.com> >> *Cc: *nanog@nanog.org >> *Sent: *Monday, October 3, 2022 9:54:07 PM >> *Subject: *Re: FCC chairwoman: Fines alone aren't enough (Robocalls) >> >> The issue isn't which 'prefixes' I accept from my customers, but which >> 'prefixes' I accept from the people I peer with, because it's entirely >> dynamic and without a doing a database dip on EVERY call, I have to assume >> that my peer or my peers customer or my peers peer is doing the right >> thing. >> >> I can't simply block traffic from a peer carrier, it's not allowed, so >> there has to be some mechanism to mark that a prefix should be allowed, >> which is what Shaken/Stir does. >> >> Shane >> >> >> >> On Mon, Oct 3, 2022 at 7:05 PM Michael Thomas <m...@mtcc.com> wrote: >> >>> The problem has always been solvable at the ingress provider. The >>> problem was that there was zero to negative incentive to do that. You >>> don't need an elaborate PKI to tell the ingress provider which prefixes >>> customers are allow to assert. It's pretty analogous to when submission >>> authentication was pretty nonexistent with email... there was no >>> incentive to not be an open relay sewer. Unlike email spam, SIP >>> signaling is pretty easy to determine whether it's spam. All it needed >>> was somebody to force regulation which unlike email there was always >>> jurisdiction with the FCC. >>> >>> Mike >>> >>> On 10/3/22 3:13 PM, Jawaid Bazyar wrote: >>> > We're talking about blocking other carriers. >>> > >>> > On 10/3/22, 3:05 PM, "Michael Thomas" <m...@mtcc.com> wrote: >>> > >>> > On 10/3/22 1:54 PM, Jawaid Bazyar wrote: >>> > > Because it's illegal for common carriers to block traffic >>> otherwise. >>> > >>> > Wait, what? It's illegal to police their own users? >>> > >>> > Mike >>> > >>> > > >>> > > On 10/3/22, 2:53 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Michael Thomas" >>> <nanog-bounces+jbazyar=verobroadband....@nanog.org on behalf of >>> m...@mtcc.com> wrote: >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > On 10/3/22 1:34 PM, Sean Donelan wrote: >>> > > > 'Fines alone aren't enough:' FCC threatens to blacklist >>> voice >>> > > > providers for flouting robocall rules >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> https://www.cyberscoop.com/fcc-robocall-fine-database-removal/ >>> > > > >>> > > > [...] >>> > > > “This is a new era. If a provider doesn’t meet its >>> obligations under >>> > > > the law, it now faces expulsion from America’s phone >>> networks. Fines >>> > > > alone aren’t enough,” FCC chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel >>> said in a >>> > > > statement accompanying the announcement. “Providers that >>> don’t follow >>> > > > our rules and make it easy to scam consumers will now >>> face swift >>> > > > consequences.” >>> > > > >>> > > > It’s the first such enforcement action by the agency to >>> reduce the >>> > > > growing problem of robocalls since call ID verification >>> protocols >>> > > > known as “STIR/SHAKEN” went fully into effect this >>> summer. >>> > > > [...] >>> > > >>> > > Why did we need to wait for STIR/SHAKEN to do this? >>> > > >>> > > Mike >>> > > >>> > >>> > >>> >> >> >