Re: FCC chairwoman: Fines alone aren't enough (Robocalls)
Phone spam pretty much always involves the knowledge and involvement of the provider. There are no phone providers who don't know when one of their customers are making millions of robocalls. International toll fraud also always involves the collusion of corrupt small country telephone monopolies. So unlike email spam, where there are a million ways to send a million emails a minute without someone being aware, phone spam is definitively collisional. (Is that a word?) On 10/3/22, 5:05 PM, "Michael Thomas" 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" 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" 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 > > > >
Re: FCC chairwoman: Fines alone aren't enough (Robocalls)
We're talking about blocking other carriers. On 10/3/22, 3:05 PM, "Michael Thomas" 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" 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 >
Re: FCC chairwoman: Fines alone aren't enough (Robocalls)
Because it's illegal for common carriers to block traffic otherwise. On 10/3/22, 2:53 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Michael Thomas" 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
Re: End of Cogent-Sprint peering wars?
$1 deals usually come with an operation in the red, or assumption of significant debts. On 9/7/22, 2:55 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Dave Taht" wrote: On Wed, Sep 7, 2022 at 1:48 PM Sean Donelan wrote: > > > Are Sprint AS1239 and Cogent AS174 finally going to settle their peering > disputes? > > T-Mobile sells legacy Sprint wireline business to Cogent for $1, expects > hefty charge > https://www.reuters.com/markets/deals/cogent-communications-acquire-t-mobiles-wireline-business-2022-09-07/ > > 1,400 customers > 1,300 employees > > 19,000 long-haul route miles > 1,300 metro route miles > 16,800 leased route miles That's a dollar well spent. It also explains the layoffs. > -- FQ World Domination pending: https://blog.cerowrt.org/post/state_of_fq_codel/ Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC
Re: email spam
Simple solution: create a system that can flawlessly map IP address to GPS coordinates, then just nuke the spammers from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. Then the rest of us don't have to filter out emails. On 8/23/22, 11:19 PM, "NANOG on behalf of b...@theworld.com" wrote: They should demand a full refund. On August 23, 2022 at 18:33 b...@herrin.us (William Herrin) wrote: > Hello, > > To folks at places like Google and Godaddy which have gotten, shall we > say, overzealous about preventing spam from entering their systems, > consider the risk: > > https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2022/08/23/fairfax-county-counselor-solicitation-minor/ > > "Chesterfield County police said emails notifying Fairfax County > Public Schools that an employee was arrested and charged with > soliciting prostitution from a minor were not delivered to the school > system." > > Long story short, the pedo kept his school job another year and a half. > > There was once a time when both the outbound emails and the bounce > messages when they failed... worked. It was a spammy place but the > important emails got through. > > Regards, > Bill Herrin -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die| b...@theworld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*
Re: Looking for contact within Comcast Xfinity
Comcast also molests SIP. From: NANOG on behalf of "Aaron C. de Bruyn via NANOG" Reply-To: "Aaron C. de Bruyn" Date: Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 7:47 AM To: Michael Brown Cc: North American Network Operators' Group Subject: Re: Looking for contact within Comcast Xfinity I ran into this a few days ago. Both the random agent I talked to and our sales rep said they can't disable the security edge service without increasing the cost of service for all of our accounts. Apparently it costs more to not molest DNS traffic leaving your network. They can temporarily disable it, but they said it will turn back on when the modem is rebooted. It seems to only affect TCP and UDP port 53. I fixed it by setting all of our routers to use DoH and DoT exclusively. They can't intercept and molest that traffic. -A On Tue, Aug 23, 2022, 05:39 Michael Brown mailto:mich...@supermathie.net>> wrote: If anyone from Comcast Xfinity is on this list, can you please reach out to me? We're getting increased reports of xFi Advanced Security customers being unable to access hosted sites and attempting to open tickets has had no success. Thanks, Michael Brown
Akamai Peering
Hi, We had Akamai servers in our data center for many years until a couple years ago, when they said they’d changed their policies and decommissioned the servers. I understand that, maintaining many server sites and being responsible for that hardware, even if you pay nothing for power or collocation, must be costly. And at the time, we didn’t have much traffic to them. Today, however, we’re hitting 6 Gbps with them nightly. Not sure what traffic it is they’re hosting but it’s surely video of some sort. We are in the same data center with them, Edgeconnex Denver, and they refuse to peer because they say their minimum traffic level for peering is 30 Gbps. Their peeringdb entry says “open peering”, and in my book that’s not open peering. So this seems to be exactly backward from where every other major content provider is going – free peering with as many eyeball networks as possible. Google – no bandwidth minimum, and, they cover costs on 1st and every other cross connect Amazon – peers are two Denver IX Apple – peers at two Denver IX Netflix – free peering everywhere And, on top of that, Akamai is not at either of the two Denver exchange points, which push together probably half a terabit of traffic. What is the financial model for Akamai to restrict peering this way? Surely it’s not the 10G ports and optics, which are cheap as dirt these days. Doesn’t this policy encourage eyeballs to move this traffic to their cheapest possible transit links, with a potential degradation of service for Akamai’s content customers? Thanks for the insight, Jawaid [uc%3fid=1CZG_hGEeUP_KD95fSHu2oBRA_6dkOo6n] Jawaid Bazyar Chief Technical Officer VERO Broadband [signature_3735065359] 303-815-1814 [signature_3363732610] jbaz...@verobroadband.com<mailto:jbaz...@verobroadband.com> [signature_60923] https://verobroadband.com [signature_4057438942] 2347 Curtis St, Denver, CO 80205
Akamai Contact
Hi, having trouble engaging with an Akamai contact in relation to the server stack we have here. Feel free to contact me. -- Jawaid Bazyar President ph 303.815.1814 fax 303.815.1001 jawaid.baz...@forethought.net <http://www.foreThought.net>
