InterCage, Inc. (NOT Atrivo)

Fri Sep 12 02:23:35 UTC 2008

On Sep 11, 2008, at 9:11 PM, Lamar Owen wrote:
> On Thursday 11 September 2008 18:37:59 Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
>> On Sep 11, 2008, at 8:50 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
>>> On Thursday 11 September 2008 06:23:29 list-nanog at pwns.ms wrote:
>>>> This is not a court. In court, if you are determined guilty a large
>>>> punishment may be exacted
>>>
>>> Depeering is not a large punishment?
>>>
>>> In the internet world, mass depeering / de-transitting like we've
>>> see in this
>>> instance is akin to capital punishment.  By vigilantes.  The US Old
>>> West
>>> redux.
>>
>> You are confused.
>
> No, I'm not, actually.

We disagree.

> As you say, it's every man (peer) for himself; is this
> not a digital analog to the dynamic of the Old West?
>
> If I have either a peering agreement or a transit arrangement with a  
> written
> contract, then that contract supports my 'rights' under that contract
> persuant to my responsibilities being fulfilled.

If you had ever read a peering agreement, you would know they contain  
no guarantees of connectivity.  Your rights are actually set forth as  
to what you may not do (e.g. point default), not what you may do (e.g.  
connect to me).  Well, unless you include "disconnect from me" as a  
right.

As for transit agreements, note that the network in question was  
kicked off both its transit providers in essentially nothing flat, so  
they obviously are not guaranteed either.  (Not to mention at least  
two more the transit providers previous to this thread.)

> But here on NANOG it sure looked like the gunfight at the OK Corral  
> earlier as
> the posse went after the bad guys.  And, well, yes, the alleged 'bad  
> guys'
> might have deserved the penalty.  But it was sure an interesting  
> dynamic to
> watch.  Go back and read the whole thread; it is very enlightening.

Perhaps you should read up more on the "alleged" bad guys.  I like to  
think of myself as a very open minded person, but child pr0n tends to  
upset essentially everyone.  (And no, we are not talking 17 year olds,  
or even teenagers.)

> But you don't have to get all defensive about it.

Not defensive, educational.

 From the tone and content of your posts, I made the - perhaps  
erroneous - assumption you were unclear on how and why networks  
interconnected.  But to try and verify my assumption, I asked you a  
question, which you ignored:

Mind if I ask why you think you have any right to connect to my  
network if I do not want you to do so?

Although you verified my assumption anyway (see point you tried to  
make about peering agreements above).  That said, I like to understand  
the root of your confusion, so I am still interested in your answer.

-- 
TTFN,
patrick