|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical RE: Fwd: Re: Digital Island sponsors DoS attempt
That's great Pat, I especially liked the twist/jump from "upgrading to DS3...etc" to "Who said I had to use a standardized method to deliver my web page?". Intead of trying to figure out what your web page has to do with our- standardized upgrades vs. non-standard, non-internet-community sanctioned "internet performance enhancement" ping probes- debate, I give up. I see that the subjects at hand are a big scramble in your gord. Regardless, have a wonderful weekend. Marc -----Original Message----- From: Patrick W. Gilmore [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, October 26, 2001 4:33 PM To: [email protected]; Quibell, Marc Subject: RE: Fwd: Re: Digital Island sponsors DoS attempt At 04:00 PM 10/26/2001 -0500, Quibell, Marc wrote: >Don't be insulting Happy Gilmore. My goodness. You are so original. Lord knows I ain't never heard that one before. Oh, three words - Pot, Kettle, Black. >You said, "Certainly would not want someone to upgrade from a DS3 to an OC3 >to "enhance internet >traffic" from their site to me, or multi-home to make sure if one provider >/ line dies their site is still available. And forget about using load >balancers, Content Distribution Networks, etc." > >Talk about silly! Ever notice why STANDARD (hint) upgrades are warranted, >while not even remotely connected to the subject at hand? >S-T-A-N-D-A-R-D-I-Z-E-D. We all can use our brains and tell the difference >between standard upgrades and standard load-balancing, as defined by >numerous RFCs, and non-standard, uninformed haphazard methodology! First: Who said I had to use a standardized method to deliver my web page? Second: Most "standards" are in use before they are standardized (e.g. IP Anycast). Third: Last time I checked, you did not get to decide what was "warranted" on my network / web server / whatever. Fourth: You have yet to show you can use your brain. Uh, I mean, "use your brain to tell the difference between standard and non-standard methodology". (Yeah, that's what I meant. :) >I made a point that basically said DI's unorthodoxed methodologies are not >your choice (at least not until you discover them). You addressed that point >by saying I misinterpreted that, that "using a gizmo was my choice" and I >said that the difference is that one is a choice, your choice, the other is >not. And I must also add that one affects only you while the other affects >the entire Internet. Big difference, see it? Now take back that 'silly' >comment! :) No, you are still being silly. I specifically take exception to your comment: "Usually, IP and such technologies are the charge of the internet community and we form committees, or use IEEE, IETF, RFCs, ARIN." Those bodies make a framework, and we are allowed to be as creative inside (and sometimes outside) that framework as we please. Period. Furthermore, you stated: "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." I did not ask your permission to be "allowed" to help the Internet, or run my business. And after this thread, you can be assured I never shall. If you do not like the fact other people can do things on the Internet which are not sanctioned by the RFCs, or you personally, I am afraid you are in for a life full of disappointment. And I seriously doubt a single network will give a gnat's ass whether it bothers you or not. >Marc -- TTFN, patrick
|