network policy (was Re: Stealth Blocking)
vixie at mfnx.net
Sun May 27 03:07:39 UTC 2001
following up my own post:
> If the contract between the network owner and her customers does not allow
> this type of policy-level traffic rejection, then she may have to stop. At
> best this would be a matter for an arbitrator or civil court to determine.
> It's certainly not something that third parties, including third parties
> whose traffic is being rejected, to have any say in.
> Many restaurants have a "No shirt, no shoes, no service" sign out front.
> Perhaps they lose the business of shirtless and/or shoeless persons. But
> it's their business to lose. Outsider busybodies have no right to override
> the expressed wishes of business owners.
i invite debate, preferrably in private but i'll let challengers choose the
forum. i've received absolutely no feedback on the above post, which either
means that it's too correct to argue with, or too incorrect to bother with.
if you think it's the latter, i'd like to hear from you, privately or not.
More information about the NANOG