Fwd: Re: Digital Island sponsors DoS attempt

Fri Oct 26 19:27:11 UTC 2001

At 12:55 PM 10/26/2001 -0500, Quibell, Marc wrote:
 >
 >I see that you have no concept of what I just said. Thanks for the
 >clarification.

James is not the only one - I have no clue what you were trying to say either.

Let's look at your first statement:

 > Me thinks that when such technologies be commercialized on the net, there
 > will be problems. Usually, IP and such technologies are the charge of the
 > internet community and we form committees, or use IEEE, IETF, RFCs,
 > ARIN...etc for these and other technologies and come to  open internet
 > standards and agreements on how to improve such things. Now we have these
 > people coming in here on their own and attempting to shove their technolgies
 > down our pipes w/o OUR concensus! Anyone now see the problem with this? I
 > believe this to be the key as to why this is wrong and why DI, or Akamai,
 > should not be even allowed to 'help' the internet.

The IETF, RFCs, etc. define protocol formats.  While they do define some 
prohibited behavior, there is a LOT of leeway in use of the packets & 
protocols defined.  To my knowledge (and please feel free to correct me if 
I am wrong), the probes discussed in this thread are not prohibited in any 
draft, RFC, standard, etc.

Since the only thing "these people" are shoving down your pipes are 
PROPERLY FORMATTED IP PACKETS, which violate no existing or proposed 
standard, I am not certain why the IETF, IEEE, etc. would even care.

If you mean that they are using properly formatted packets in an incorrect 
fashion (e.g. spam), please be more clear.  But saying that every time 
someone has a better way of doing something they must go to the IETF first 
is just plain silly.

BTW: I doubt DI is trying to "'help' the internet".  (I could be wrong, I 
do not work for DI.)  They are probably trying to make money (just like 
most of the rest of us here).  Not that they need your permission to "help" 
the Internet anyway, so your statement about "should not be even allowed" 
is completely irrelevant.

 >Marc

--
TTFN,
patrick

P.S.  An answer of "you don't understand" will be treated with s/you/I as 
you would be showing your lack of understanding through your inability to 
communicate your argument.

 >-----Original Message-----
 >From: James Thomason [mailto:james at divide.org]
 >Sent: Friday, October 26, 2001 12:18 PM
 >To: Quibell, Marc
 >Cc: 'Mike Batchelor'; nanog at merit.edu
 >Subject: RE: Fwd: Re: Digital Island sponsors DoS attempt
 >
 >
 >They are using standard technology, Digital Island and Akamai did not
 >invent ICMP.  The methodology is new, and they have the right to use
 >it.  If you dislike the methodology, you can block it, or propose to the
 >IETF that we change or remove ICMP.