GLBX De-Peers Intercage [Was: RE: Washington Post: Atrivo/Intercag e, why are we peering with the American RBN?]

Paul Ferguson fergdawg at netzero.net
Mon Sep 1 14:43:51 CDT 2008


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

- -- "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb at cs.columbia.edu> wrote:

>On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 11:08:20 -0400 Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu wrote:
>
>> a) There exist providers that are willing to take money from scum.
>> b) We won't get rid of the scum until we admit (a) is true.
>
>I mostly agree with you -- but I get very worried about who defines
>"scum".  Consider the following cases, which I will assert are not very
>far-fetched:
>

I can certainly see how the definition of "scum" could be hijacked
to fit any particular political agenda, too.

For the particular purposes I referred to earlier, the definition
would be:

"Continuing to allow criminal activity to occur within your network."

"Criminal activity" is easily definable by laws which state that
malicious, willful, and concerted attempts to perpetrate financial
theft, fraud, and unauthorized computer tampering are illegal.

But with all the ensuing discussion, it would appear that this
is a matter in which ISPs defer, and a matter best addressed by
law enforcement.

- - ferg

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Desktop 9.6.3 (Build 3017)

wj8DBQFIvEXpq1pz9mNUZTMRAhRNAJ9nzEVp3PCAoQKFKltQFRwh3yLpwACg0gRO
EnWO3Y4YQ/Z+F52z5il6Pdg=
=cMVa
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--
"Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson
 Engineering Architecture for the Internet
 fergdawg(at)netzero.net
 ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/





More information about the NANOG mailing list