|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical RE: Kill Verisign Routes :: A Dynamic BGP solution
I guess we don't really need to discuss the political ramifications, because I don't really care about VS. Our internal policy is to kill the route to the host. I'm offering up a tool to implement a technical solution to killing the route. Nothing more, nothing less. It only affects our internal network, so we don't really have a global impact, unlike some folks in Virgina. If people want it, its here. If not, they're free to delete this. Key is, they have choice. Eric > -----Original Message----- > From: David Schwartz [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 4:04 AM > To: J.A. Terranson > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: RE: Kill Verisign Routes :: A Dynamic BGP solution > > > > > On Thu, 18 Sep 2003, David Schwartz wrote: > > > > I think the whole idea of getting into an escalating > > > technical war with > > > Verisign is extremely bad. Your suggestion only makes sense if > > > you expect > > > Verisign to make changes to evade technical solutions. Each > > > such change by > > > Verisign will cause more breakage. Verisign will either > provide a way to > > > definitively, quickly, and easily tell that a domain is not > > > registered or > > > Verisign will badly break COM and NET. > > > > DS > > > With all due respect, this line of logic is the same one used > in the US to > > prevent people from defending themselves from other types of > > crime, and it's totally bogus. > > Really? I've never seen anyone attempt such an argument, > but it would be > rather amusing to see. Which part would you use? > > Would you argue that criminals aren't likely to take steps > that obviously > are attempts to reduce the effectiveness of guns? And if they do, > they will > have to deal with the likely PR and government pressure that would result. > > The whole point here is that it's not clear to everyone > that Verisign is > analogous to the criminal. The point is to make it clear that they are and > that won't happen if you look very much like them. > > > We have been, in a literal sense, attacked by Verislime, any and > > all defenses > > are appropriate. > > No. The defenses have to be reasonable and have to avoid > collateral damage > to innocent parties. If not, Verisign will have a reasonable argument that > we are the bad guys. They caused some breakage? So what, so did we. They > distorted the true data that should have been in the zone? So what, so did > we. > > You are welcome to see this as an attack, but the response > should not be > out of proportion. If a measured response leads to an escalation, then you > can consider "any and all defenses". > > DS > > >
|