InterCage, Inc. (NOT Atrivo)

Steve Gibbard scg at
Fri Sep 12 14:02:00 CDT 2008

On Fri, 12 Sep 2008, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:

> Going back a bit in case you forgot, we were discussing the fact you have NO 
> RIGHT to connect to my network, it is a privilege, not a right.  You 
> responded with: "If I have either a peering agreement ... then that contract 
> supports my 'rights' under that contract persuant to my responsibilities 
> being fulfilled."  Then you posted this contract as an example of those 
> "rights".  From the contract you claim to be "a great model":

Calm down, Patrick. :)

It's probably correct that any individual player in this industry not 
under other regulatory restrictions can refuse to do business with 
somebody they don't like, sometimes.  For the industry as a whole to make 
a group decision to not do business with somebody who may be a competitor 
seems more legally risky.  Engaging in that sort of thing without getting 
some good legal advice first would certainly make me nervous.

Since this appears to be somebody who is contracting with lots of US 
providers, their identity is presumably known.  This discussion has now 
been going on for long enough that it's presumably passed the emergency, 
"act now; think later," phase.  Should what they're doing be a law 
enforcement issue, rather than a "they've got cooties" issue?


More information about the NANOG mailing list