North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Fw: Administrivia: ORBS

  • From: Paul Vixie
  • Date: Sun Jan 16 01:27:36 2000

Just hit D now.  Move along.  There's nothing to see.
I warned you.

> So far AboveNet hasn't denied that there are/were open relays on "their"
> networks either, at least not to my knowledge.

Well, if they didn't deny it, then it MUST be true.  Q.E.D.

>                                                All we know now is that
> ORBS can no longer be used to prove that there are none remaining.

So, Greg, have you stopped beating your wife?  (Never mind.)

> ORBS also maintains that they do not, nor have they ever, systematically
> and preemptively scanned any networks.  They also actively discourage
> users of their web interface from doing such scanning and I've heard
> second hand that they do in fact cut off access to the web interface
> by anyone attempting such scans.

Your second hand information differs significantly from mine.

> Eg. even though my own network is assigned from a UUNET block, I am the
> only one who owns the rights to receive packets at my IP addresses, or
> indeed the right to block such packets (to the extent that packets to or
> from my network don't cause some transit provider grief in the form of a
> denial of service attack or such).

You're assuming that packets with your IP address on either end of them are
sacred in some way and have the right to pass unmolested on any wire no
matter who pays for that wire or what their preferences are.  I find that
reasoning strikingly similar to what spammers say about THEIR traffic, and
I'm starting to wonder why you are defending the efforts of an anti-spam
organization (ORBS) if your ethical sympathies are all completely compatible
with "theft of service"?

>              ... -- it should only be AboveNet's customers who have any
> right to refuse service to anyone, not AboveNet themselves.  

So your provider ought not do anything about smurf attacks forged in your
name, either?

> That's certainly what I expect of my provider.

I'm very happy that you have a choice of providers, and that you can find
one who will sell you the kind of service you want.  It sounds, though, as
if you're not quite as happy that I have the same choice, or that I exercise
it differently than you exercise yours.  Why is that?

>                                           Your absolutely right on that
> last point though -- AboveNet's customers can decide with their feet.
> It won't be an easy decision though as in all other aspects AboveNet
> seems to be a premium service.

Gee, I wonder if there's a connection between this aspect and all others,
or if the premium aspect is merely accidental or in spite of the blocking
aspect?  (HINT! That's a rhetorial question, the answer being "yes, there
is a connection.")

> > They are looking for port 25 on all addresses within /16'.  You call it
> > what you want, I'll call it a port scanner.
> Are they really?  Can you prove it?

ORBS and MAPS have a mutual nonaggression pact, which I'm skating near the
edge of by entering this discussion at all.  No, I won't be "proving it."
Paul Vixie <[email protected]>

	>> But what *IS* the internet?
	> It's the largest equivalence class in the reflexive transitive
	> symmetric closure of the relationship "can be reached by an IP
	> packet from".		--Seth Breidbart