On 01/02/12 23:49, Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:
On 01/02/2012, at 9:15 PM, Mark Foster wrote:
(still, to this day, finding providers in the USA and Canada who muck with TCP coming out of NZ due to the poor reputations of our more Asian-centric counterparts also taking APNIC delegations). Can you explain this a bit more?
In recent times (and longer ago, and across most of my previous jobs in the last 10 years or so) I have frequently found that American organisations find it easier to block large parts of APNIC in the guise of 'security' and overlook the fact that they do business with .nz and .au. Apparently it's easier to block at the /8 or even /16 than it is to apply other measures to protect ones network. This is particularly fun when you can't email them due to said blocks... I think I'm cynical enough now to think that there's plenty of large North American corporates who simply don't care (or are oblivious) about the collateral damage in terms of lost trade with New Zealand and Australia in particular, because of a perceived threat originating from .cn, .kr, etc. As a result i'm never particularly surprised to wind up revisiting this issue at least annually, and spending disproportionate amounts of time and money (using the likes of hotmail or gmail to bypass the blocks, making toll calls to overseas technical support lines (and then trying to actually find someone with the relevant cloo and clout to fix it)) trying to get the filters relaxed sufficiently that we (my org, or my customers) can correspond or trade with them. Mark.