net.terrorism

Wed Jan 10 08:17:39 UTC 2001

Because it seems we have denigrated to finger pointing and attacking
members of the list, in spite of the condenses opinion that we would
not do this to each other. net.terrorism is a very poor choice of word
since no carrier is required to carry traffic that is deemed harmful to
its downstream client's and to use this list to blackmail or harm
anyone's interest violates the operational fabric of the entire group.

This is shameful and unprofessional in my humble opinion and should
cease now.

Paul A Vixie wrote:

> > After this mail, we contacted Above.net again. They basically told us it
> > was for our own protection
>
> no.
>
> >                            because that traffic from that host does not
> > comply to their AUP.
>
> yes.
>
> >                        We specifically told them we really don't mind them
> > blackholing that host but *announcing* a route for it. So far no response.
>
> you expect abovenet to cut uunet's /16 into pieces so as to avoid sending to
> its customers the parts which violate abovenet's acceptable use guidelines?
> even if this were a scalable approach (considering the number of /16's which
> have violating /32's inside them, or will in the future), it's something i'd
> expect the owner of the /16 to take issue with.
>
> why are we discussing this on nanog?
>
> Paul Vixie <pvixie at mmfn.com>
> CTO and SVP, MFN (NASDAQ: MFNX)

--

Thank you;
|--------------------------------|
| Thinking is a learned process. |
| ICANN member @large            |
| Gigabit over IP, ieee 802.17   |
| working group                  |
| Resilient Packet Transport     |
|--------------------------------|
Henry R. Linneweh