Internet partitioning event regulations (was: RE: Sending vs r equesting. Was: Re: Sprint / Cogent)

Alexander Harrowell a.harrowell at gmail.com
Wed Nov 5 17:01:33 CST 2008


Have we yet had a peering war that was genuinely international, i.e. the partition was between net X in country Y and net Z in country W? Rather than between X's Y and Z's Y divisions, which wd both be in Y jurisdiction?

- original message -
Subject:	Re: Internet partitioning event regulations (was: RE: Sending vs requesting. Was: Re: Sprint / Cogent)
From:	"Scott Weeks" <surfer at mauigateway.com>
Date:		05/11/2008 10:47 pm



--- herrin-nanog at dirtside.com wrote:

That having been said, jurisdiction is a red herring. Every
transit-free provider does at least some of its business in the United
States. Economic reality compels them to continue to do so for the
foreseeable future. That's all the hook the Feds need.
---------------------------------------------


Are you saying that if any part of a network touches US soil it can be regulated by the US govt over the entirety of the network?  For my part, this is not an attempt to change the subject or divert the argument (red herring).  It is a valid question with operational impact.

scott








More information about the NANOG mailing list