[AusNOG] Report on 1/8 traffic

[Matthew Moyle-Croft]

On 08/04/2010, at 2:58 PM, Terry Manderson wrote:

> 
> On 08/04/2010, at 3:25 PM, Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:
>>> 
>>> Is anyone aware of a case study released by any business that has been through this?
>> 
>> We've been through this a number of times.   I'm sure most ISPs who have recent (last few years) allocations from APNIC will have too.
>> 
> 
> blog it? ;-)
> 
> {is 'blog' a four letter word ;) }

We have people at this company who blog and twitter.   I guess I prefer to rant and discuss over beer.

I don't deal with that aspect of the business anyway.  (Getting people to de-bogon).

> 
>> To be honest the carriers/isps are less of an issue - few of those want to actively get in the way of a customer packet.  Most of the issues are related to content.   Especially Banks.  Especially Banks with outsourced IT.   People who don't really grok da InterWebZ and this CIDR rubbish and are too paranoid to change anything.
> 
> Right, so that was presumably with allocations that were considered pristine?

For whatever "pristine" means.   Given that I don't think anyone really did any studies on the space we were allocated it's hard to compare.   (Maybe all unallocated space needs the 1/8 treatment to see how it compares). 

I have an historic /24 that predates APNIC I use at home.  I had the issue that someone used it as internal space randomly a few years ago and I had to get them to stop sending me rubbish from their internal network when they decommissioned and office.   So, nothing is guaranteed pristine.   (<sigh> need to work out how to change reverse DNS delegation without giving APNIC money for the privilege).

> And like it or not the interweb users are part of the net too :-)

As long as they get pr0n and facebook they wouldn't know if they were double, triple or de-nated.   

> 
> Terry

MMC

-- 
Matthew Moyle-Croft
Peering Manager and Team Lead - Commercial and DSLAMs
Internode /Agile