Fwd: Re: Digital Island sponsors DoS attempt

Fri Oct 26 21:00:55 UTC 2001

Don't be insulting Happy Gilmore. 

You said, "Certainly would not want someone to upgrade from a DS3 to an OC3
to "enhance internet 
traffic" from their site to me, or multi-home to make sure if one provider 
/ line dies their site is still available.  And forget about using load 
balancers, Content Distribution Networks, etc."

Talk about silly! Ever notice why STANDARD (hint) upgrades are warranted,
while not even remotely connected to the subject at hand?
S-T-A-N-D-A-R-D-I-Z-E-D. We all can use our brains and tell the difference
between standard upgrades and standard load-balancing, as defined by
numerous RFCs, and non-standard, uninformed haphazard methodology!

I made a point that basically said DI's unorthodoxed methodologies are not
your choice (at least not until you discover them). You addressed that point
by saying I misinterpreted that, that "using a gizmo was my choice" and I
said that the difference is that one is a choice, your choice, the other is
not. And I must also add that one affects only you while the other affects
the entire Internet. Big difference, see it? Now take back that 'silly'
comment! :)

Marc 

-Trying to find the silliness...

-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick W. Gilmore [mailto:patrick at ianai.net]
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2001 3:47 PM
To: nanog at merit.edu; Quibell, Marc
Subject: RE: Fwd: Re: Digital Island sponsors DoS attempt

At 03:29 PM 10/26/2001 -0500, Quibell, Marc wrote:
 >You said, "If I feel like using..(someone's) performance improving gizmo,
 >it's my decision." The problem with this is, in the DI example, it is not
 >your choice. I suppose if you're confortable with the idea of rogue
 >companies trying to enhance internet traffic on their own, whether you
agree
 >with the methodology or not and giving you no choice, then that is your
 >perogative.

Somehow I knew you would misinterpret what I said.

Allow me to help you out a bit.  You completely missed this part:

<quote>
And the IETF, IEEE, RFC-editor, NANOG, EFF, PTA, SPCA, or any other 
alphabet organization has nothing to say about it.  (Assuming, of course, I 
am not violating standards, attacking people, etc.)

[...]

Unfortunately, it *MAY* be that DI is violating that "assuming, of course" 
part above.
</quote>

As for "rogue companies trying enhance internet traffic on their own", 
well, we better make sure everyone has the same routers, same transit 
provider, same BGP config, same web server software, etc., etc.  Certainly 
would not want someone to upgrade from a DS3 to an OC3 to "enhance internet 
traffic" from their site to me, or multi-home to make sure if one provider 
/ line dies their site is still available.  And forget about using load 
balancers, Content Distribution Networks, etc.

Marc, I have tried to be nice, but your replies just get more & more silly 
as time goes on.  Please read the whole post & think before (if) you
reply....

 >Marc

--
TTFN,
patrick

P.S.  I wonder if Keynote has permission from every web page they test?