<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2653.12">
<TITLE>RE: How does one make not playing nice with each other scale? (Was: net.terrorism)</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>I'll point out that someone banning a site for AUP violations should only be able to affect their own network, since policies are supposed to be organization-level. (Thus, inflicting your policy decision on someone else is a very gray area, legally and ethically.)</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>The reason why MAPS-RBL works (and is legally protected) is because everyone who uses it must -consent- to using it, and take positive action on their end to configure it. This means that each organization generates and enforces their own policy, though with assistance from an outside consultancy. However, in this case, AboveNet is inflicting policy decisions on transit routes =without consent=. (It's obvious this is without consent, otherwise this thread would never have come up.)</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>It brings up an interesting point, but the law has held in the past that boycotts are only effective and legal if they're voluntary, and if coercion is involved then it become "intimidation tactics" of "organized crime". I can't for the life of me imagine how the Internet is any different -- maybe if you tried to apply turnpike or private highway rules to it, but those rules are generally based on consent, as well.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Just some thoughts...</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>-Mat Butler</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>-----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>From: Mark Mentovai [<A HREF="mailto:mark-list@mentovai.com">mailto:mark-list@mentovai.com</A>]</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2001 10:26 AM</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>To: Paul Vixie</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Cc: nanog@merit.edu</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Subject: Re: How does one make not playing nice with each other scale?</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>(Was: net.terrorism)</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>There are a few things that would stand in the way of adoption of something</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>like this: first, each anti-route would require manual configuration, and</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>that comes with its own set of problems. Another potential issue (this is</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>purely theoretical, I'm not referring to any past, present, or future</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>situation in particular) is that providers trying to blackhole a certain</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>site for AUP violations may want to negatively impact reachability as much</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>as possible, rather than purely keeping the offending traffic off their</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>network. These folks wouldn't want to advertise anti-routes because the</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>resulting blackhole avoidance would encourage others to take working</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>alternate paths, which does less harm to the site in question.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Still, this may be a beneficial, even if little-used, addition. Thoughts?</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Mark</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>