InterCage, Inc. (NOT Atrivo)

Fri Sep 12 17:43:42 UTC 2008

On Sep 12, 2008, at 1:42 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:

> [On-list comment.  Off-list comments longer.]
>
> On Thursday 11 September 2008 22:23:35 Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
>>> 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,
>
> I have; see this publicly available peering agreement [0], where in  
> clause 9
> we find the wording "Neither party shall assign its rights under this
> Agreement without the prior written consent of the other party."  In  
> clause 5
> we find the wording "If ... there are significant breaches of the  
> conditions
> of this agreement, both parties reserve the right unilaterally to  
> immediately
> terminate the agreement ..."  See what lies under the points of  
> ellipsis by
> reading the whole (2.5 page) agreement; it is succinct, clear, and a  
> great
> model.
>
> Drifting off-topic; my participation in this thread terminated,  
> unilaterally.

Actually, peering is on-topic.  I'm sure there are many others out  
there who are just as unaware of how things work on the Internet as  
you are.  That said, I'm not sure how many of them can read a peering  
agreement come to the conclusion that you then have a "right" to  
connect to my network.

Going back a bit in case you forgot, we were discussing the fact you  
have NO RIGHT to connect to my network, it is a privilege, not a  
right.  You responded with: "If I have either a peering agreement ...  
then that contract supports my 'rights' under that contract persuant  
to my responsibilities being fulfilled."  Then you posted this  
contract as an example of those "rights".  From the contract you claim  
to be "a great model":

<quote>
Each party’s entire liability and sole remedies, whether in contract  
or in tort, in respect of any default
shall be as set out in this Clause or Clause 5. Each party’s remedies  
against the other in respect of any
default shall be limited to damages and/or termination of this  
agreement.
</quote>

I guess you could argue you have a right - at least until I type  
"shut" on your BGP sessions.  Then your rights end.

I need no reasoning to do this.  None.  And your recourse once I have  
done this is....  Hrmm, it seems your only recourse is to type "shut"  
on your side of the session.  Yeah, lots of rights there.

Now, in practice, it is poor manners, and poor business judgement to  
shut someone off without notice.  It hurts your customers and mine,  
and puts a very large strain on any other business dealings we have in  
progress or might have in the future.  But manners and business deals  
are not rights.  That should be plainly obvious to you (I hope).

Oh, and I notice you ignored my question, again.  I won't bother copy/ 
pasting it here just to have you continue to ignore it, I think the  
audience gets the point - you don't have an answer.

-- 
TTFN,
patrick