Why are you all still here? (Was Re: Stealth Blocking)
asr at latency.net
Thu May 24 19:18:48 UTC 2001
On Thu, May 24, 2001 at 11:53:04AM -0400, Mitch Halmu wrote:
> But that is the very issue that was discussed. Some filtering is
> indeed happening at the network level, regardless of what you may
> believe. There is supportive evidence of broken connectivity and
> transit packet loss because of blackholing by Tier 1 providers.
And NANOG is not the appropriate forum for such venting. If you have
a problem with the filtering policies of a transit provider, you
should communicate this to them directly. And failing that, don't
give them your business, and encourage others to do the same.
> Perhaps you missed the news that Macromedia's WEB SITE was blocked
> for a few days by Abovenet's routers?
This is not grounds for operational concern. If anything, it sounds
like good reason to load up on _more_ AS 6461 transit, stat.
I wholeheartedly support the blackholing of any company that
encourages irresponsible web design, including the development of
websites that require bloatware for proper viewing, and are more or
less impossible to navigate for the visually impaired (or mobile CDPD,
[legacy] Ricochet, BSWD, etc users -- representing a nice portion of
the power users who are supposed to "benefit" from such rich-media
sites) unless a HTML-only alternative exists. But I digress.
On Thu, May 24, 2001 at 10:56:41AM -0700, Roeland Meyer wrote:
> > The negative side effect is that it cripples people who use email
> > as a file transfer protocol.
> Which I do, quite extensively.
So, people shouldn't rate limit their SMTP servers because you need to
send large files via e-mail, when far more effective solutions exist
(and are commonly used) today? I'm not sure I see the logic in this.
More information about the NANOG