|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical RE: Fwd: Re: Digital Island sponsors DoS attempt
I see that you have no concept of what I just said. Thanks for the clarification. Marc -----Original Message----- From: James Thomason [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, October 26, 2001 12:18 PM To: Quibell, Marc Cc: 'Mike Batchelor'; [email protected] Subject: RE: Fwd: Re: Digital Island sponsors DoS attempt They are using standard technology, Digital Island and Akamai did not invent ICMP. The methodology is new, and they have the right to use it. If you dislike the methodology, you can block it, or propose to the IETF that we change or remove ICMP. On Fri, 26 Oct 2001, Quibell, Marc wrote: > > Me thinks that when such technologies be commercialized on the net, there > will be problems. Usually, IP and such technologies are the charge of the > internet community and we form committees, or use IEEE, IETF, RFCs, > ARIN...etc for these and other technologies and come to open internet > standards and agreements on how to improve such things. Now we have these > people coming in here on their own and attempting to shove their technolgies > down our pipes w/o OUR concensus! Anyone now see the problem with this? I > believe this to be the key as to why this is wrong and why DI, or Akamai, > should not be even allowed to 'help' the internet. > > Marc Quibell > ICN Network Operations Center > Data Operations Group > [email protected] > 1-800-572-3940 > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mike Batchelor [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, October 26, 2001 11:51 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: Fwd: Re: Digital Island sponsors DoS attempt > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > > in the case where the sender and receiver are communicating between one > > or many third parties, there is no direct relationship and thus no apriori > > terms of service to which the traffic must conform. for this, we > > reverse the > > model: "everything not welcomed is forbidden" and thus create a prior > > restraint problem which goes by the name "what, then, is implicitly > > welcome or unwelcome?" > > And how does the owner communicate this to the sender ahead of time? I > don't > think you can, else there would not be a spam problem. Therefore, the only > logical position the sender can take, if he is to act at all, is to assume > that whatever is not actively prevented or refused, is welcome, until such > time as he is notified otherwise. If it is not this way, how can ANY > unsolicited communication take place? Must I ask permission to ask > permission? > > - --- > "The avalanche has already begun. It is too late for the pebbles to vote" - > Kosh > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com> > > iQA/AwUBO9mUbEksS4VV8BvHEQJeQACfUpIpxRMDkZl/4CWpc/fUKF8wOFEAoKj2 > 1bhQXIg33MwAqB++ZOjlLr0r > =6hu1 > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >
|