> > Just because they were presented with the information doesn't mean they > understand.
It's our job as operators to get involved and help them understand as best as can be done, so that the proposals are as well informed as possible. > Just because they understand doesn't mean they execute based on that > information. > No set of rules will ever be perfectly executed or implemented. Doesn't matter if it's a government regulation or internal company rule. You try to start from a good place, learn what works and what doesn't, and adjust accordingly. On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 11:11 AM Mike Hammett <na...@ics-il.net> wrote: > Just because they were presented with the information doesn't mean they > understand. > Just because they understand doesn't mean they execute based on that > information. > > > > ----- > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > Midwest-IX > http://www.midwest-ix.com > > ------------------------------ > *From: *"Job Snijders via NANOG" <nanog@nanog.org> > *To: *"Josh Luthman" <j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> > *Cc: *"NANOG [nanog@nanog.org]" <nanog@nanog.org> > *Sent: *Thursday, May 16, 2024 3:20:54 PM > *Subject: *Re: Should FCC look at SS7 vulnerabilities or BGP > vulnerabilities > > On Thu, May 16, 2024 at 04:05:21PM -0400, Josh Luthman wrote: > > Now do you think they're going to properly understand what an SS7 or > > vulnerability is? > > The FCC organised several sessions (private and public) where they > invited knowledgeable people from this community to help edifice them on > what BGP is and what risks exist. > > https://www.fcc.gov/news-events/events/2023/07/bgp-security-workshop > > Watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQhoNX2Q0aM to see our very own > Tony Tauber looking sharp in a nice suit! :-) > > FCC staff attended NANOG & IETF meetings to further explore and discuss > the problem space in the hallway track. If anything, I think the FCC > made a proper effort to connect with various stakeholders and learn from > them. > > Kind regards, > > Job > >