Create like a /26, SWIP it as a description for your same ISP entity, but "Free coffee shop wifi - unauthenticated access" in the description with its own abuse address or whatever, and give the customers /30s inside that.
On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 7:17 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm < thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote: > isnt SWIP a minimum /29 though? > > > On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 8:58 PM, Eric Kuhnke <eric.kuh...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> If it is a customer that operates a open public wifi AP like a coffee >> shop, bar, restaurant, there is not a lot that you can do. Customer won't >> stop running open wifi, people won't stop bringing in infected laptops. No >> way to find out who has the infected laptops/devices. >> >> One possible solution if sufficient ARIN IP space is available is to put >> all such customers in their own special swamp netblock as static >> assignments. Consider that block forever sullied. >> >> On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 6:54 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm < >> thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I know its bad practice, I normally enjoy turning customers off, it >>> makes me feel godlike and powerful, alot of times when i get to shut one >>> off i go upstairs and drag mu woman from her bed by her hair to the kitchen >>> to make me a sammich. but for whatever reason i like this customer >>> >>> On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 5:31 PM, Eric Kuhnke <eric.kuh...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Spam and botnet activity is far more harmful to the health of your >>>> network and the IP reputation of your netblocks than anything DMCA related. >>>> >>>> >>>> torrents and DMCA notifications don't hurt the network. Knowingly >>>> leaving something that is a repository of virii/worms/trojans online is >>>> just bad practice. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 7:09 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm < >>>> thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> We have a particular customer, We have been getting tons of abuse >>>>> reports on their static IP, I assume we will never be able to wash this >>>>> sullied IP clean. Theyre not really doing any harm to our network, or >>>>> impacting others on the network, they are in full breach of our TOS, thats >>>>> for sure. suprisingly, its primarily spam and botnet activity, but no >>>>> DMCA. >>>>> >>>>> Is there any liability on us as an ISP to not address this >>>>> affirmatively with the customer. Im going to contact them, may offer a >>>>> leased fortigate UTM option. But if there isnt a resolution, other than >>>>> their static IP residing on every blacklist can we get nailed? >>>>> >>>>> Its a good customer, pays their bill on time, worked with us through a >>>>> service issue without the usual "gimme discounts and free shit or im going >>>>> elsewhere" I dont want to HAVE to disconnect them if im not required to >>>>> and >>>>> theyre not impacting others if they cant or wont resolve the issues >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your >>>>> team as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team >>> as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. >>> >> >> > > > -- > If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team > as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. >
