"portscans" (was Re: Arbor Networks DoS defense product)

Mon May 20 05:51:59 UTC 2002

On Sun, May 19, 2002 at 10:02:26PM -0400, mitch at netside.net said:
[snip]
> > > Such technology is very dangerous if automated.
> > 
> > And if its not?
> 
> Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
> 
> Such technology is very dangerous, period. Here they go again, trying 
> to elevate some Internet masterrace of super heroes, bent on ruling 
> over the masses. The titans of blackholing, carving out a fiefdom for 
> themselves, with powers of disrupting the connectivity of any network 
> they so chose. You anger some net.warlord, and your network disappears.

No. You attack or spam some other network, and said network's operator can
take action as appropriate to that network. Such action may include that
network refusing to accept future traffic from the offending network until
the problem is resolved. I don't see how this rates as 'ruling over the
masses' - it becomes, as it always has been, individual network operators
deciding how best to run their networks, as they see fit. My decisions apply
to my network, and nobody else's.

Or are you saying that network operators should not be trusted to run their
networks as they see fit? Who then makes the rules?

> What is it that turns a technocracy into idolaters?

What is it that turns the decision of an individual network operator into a
rant about political ideology?

-- 
Scott Francis                   darkuncle@ [home:] d a r k u n c l e . n e t
Systems/Network Manager          sfrancis@ [work:]         t o n o s . c o m
GPG public key 0xCB33CCA7              illum oportet crescere me autem minui
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 872 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20020519/89e8f4b1/attachment.sig>