Internet partitioning event regulations (was: RE: Sending vs requesting. Was: Re: Sprint / Cogent)
mpalmer at hezmatt.org
Wed Nov 5 17:05:13 CST 2008
On Wed, Nov 05, 2008 at 02:46:27PM -0800, Scott Weeks wrote:
> --- 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.
A good friend of mine who works for a local (Australian) bank is constantly
complaining about SOX compliance, which he has to do because there's a
related entity to the company he works for which does financial business in
It's not beyond the realm of possibility for a government (any government,
not *just* the US) to say "if you want to do business in our jurisdiction,
you will abide by the following rules", which may include rules regarding
what related entities located in other countries do.
Not that you'd really need such a regulation for peering; so much of the
"core backbone" is US-based that even just a regulation controlling how
peering worked for equipment and entities in the US would have the desired
effect -- after all, the US government would (in the short term, at least)
mostly be interested in making sure that the Internet worked within the US.
It might also (further) encourage companies to host more stuff in the US, if
they can lower their risk of connectivity problems to US-based eyeballs.
 How many depeerings have happened in other countries that have had such
a major effect on global connectivity?
One of the Rules Of Flight is, or should be: Pullout Altitude Is Not A
-- Anthony de Boer, in the monastery
More information about the NANOG