North American Network Operators Group

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

Re: peering wars revisited? PSI vs Exodus

  • From: Majdi S. Abbas
  • Date: Tue Apr 04 00:52:49 2000

> Hi Paul
> 1.  I am doing what press is HERE to do.  *INFORM*

	So, it's acceptable to publish a leaked circuit design?
Software design?  Source code?  All those things are marked
Company Confidental too...  Where does it stop...

> 2.  I am sure you can figure out that this was sent to me by an 
> affected party who wanted it leaked.

	That's irrelevant.

> 3.  This concerns the ability of a publicly traded company to give 
> its customers adequate service on the Internet.

	PSI is not the Internet.  PSI is becoming more and more
irrelevant as their customers go elsewhere.

> 4.  Exodus certainly had to tell its content providers that they were 
> gong to face problems in getting to somewhere between 5 and 10% of 
> the Internet.

	Is reduced capacity a 'problem' per se?  Unless you've got
their traffic stats, I don't see how you can make this claim.

> 5. But Exodus was also embarrassed by the deterioration in its 
> service that it was allowing to be inflicted on its customers. So 
> Exodus, in an attempt to limit the damage,  marked the email 
> "customer confidential communication."

	Maybe they just don't want to make a public announcement
every time a peering arrangement changes, and maybe they don't
want to deal with people overreacting over such a change.

> 6.  I am NOT an Exodus customer!  And since I am press I have a 
> personally reasonable  obligation, should I choose to exercise it, to 
> inform people that some important peering links have been broken.

	The fact that you're not an Exodus customer means you 
shouldn't have received that in the first place; regardless of the
'wishes' of the person that leaked it to you, the intended 
distribution is quite clear on that message.

> 7.  Exodus has a problem. In marking that customer confidential it 
> appears to me that it was trying to cover up its own problem and I 
> imagine in doing so it was making some already upset customers 
> further upset.

	I don't see how an Exodus problem or lack thereof justifies
poor ethical behaviour.

> 8. The sender of the message quite explicitly said I hope the press 
> covers this.  Therefore there was not a shred of doubt as to his 
> intent.


> In my opinion, if someone chooses to leak it to me, except for my 
> relationship to the leaker, I have no obligation to exodus or anyone 
> else.  My default mode of operation has always been to keep the 
> identity of the leaker CONFIDENTIAL.  It is a subject of interest to 
> me and I think to list readers.

	If you were truly trying to cover this, in a journalistic
sense, why not talk to PSI, and ask them about it?  Of late, they've
been promoting a supposedly open peering policy...what would make
a company that claims to peer with anyone that will drag a line to
them sever that connection, or did they?  I can think of all sorts
of obvious questions to be asking people in both places, and you
don't appear to have asked any of them.

	I think that many of us would have no problem with you
reporting the information, had you done so without leaking that
notice.  Reporting consists of a lot more than leaking confidential