North American Network Operators Group

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

Re: InterCage, Inc. (NOT Atrivo)

  • From: Patrick W. Gilmore
  • Date: Thu Sep 11 22:23:41 2008

On Sep 11, 2008, at 9:11 PM, Lamar Owen wrote:
On Thursday 11 September 2008 18:37:59 Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Sep 11, 2008, at 8:50 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
On Thursday 11 September 2008 06:23:29 [email protected] wrote:
This is not a court. In court, if you are determined guilty a large
punishment may be exacted

Depeering is not a large punishment?


In the internet world, mass depeering / de-transitting like we've
see in this
instance is akin to capital punishment.  By vigilantes.  The US Old
West
redux.

You are confused.

No, I'm not, actually.

We disagree.



As you say, it's every man (peer) for himself; is this
not a digital analog to the dynamic of the Old West?

If I have either a peering agreement or a transit arrangement with a written
contract, then that contract supports my 'rights' under that contract
persuant to my responsibilities being fulfilled.

If you had ever read a peering agreement, you would know they contain no guarantees of connectivity. Your rights are actually set forth as to what you may not do (e.g. point default), not what you may do (e.g. connect to me). Well, unless you include "disconnect from me" as a right.


As for transit agreements, note that the network in question was kicked off both its transit providers in essentially nothing flat, so they obviously are not guaranteed either. (Not to mention at least two more the transit providers previous to this thread.)


But here on NANOG it sure looked like the gunfight at the OK Corral earlier as
the posse went after the bad guys. And, well, yes, the alleged 'bad guys'
might have deserved the penalty. But it was sure an interesting dynamic to
watch. Go back and read the whole thread; it is very enlightening.

Perhaps you should read up more on the "alleged" bad guys. I like to think of myself as a very open minded person, but child pr0n tends to upset essentially everyone. (And no, we are not talking 17 year olds, or even teenagers.)



But you don't have to get all defensive about it.

Not defensive, educational.


From the tone and content of your posts, I made the - perhaps erroneous - assumption you were unclear on how and why networks interconnected. But to try and verify my assumption, I asked you a question, which you ignored:

Mind if I ask why you think you have any right to connect to my network if I do not want you to do so?

Although you verified my assumption anyway (see point you tried to make about peering agreements above). That said, I like to understand the root of your confusion, so I am still interested in your answer.

--
TTFN,
patrick