[107747] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: InterCage, Inc. (NOT Atrivo)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Patrick W. Gilmore)
Fri Sep 12 13:43:47 2008
From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>
To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <200809120142.08768.lowen@pari.edu>
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 13:43:42 -0400
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Sep 12, 2008, at 1:42 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
> [On-list comment. Off-list comments longer.]
>
> On Thursday 11 September 2008 22:23:35 Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
>>> If I have either a peering agreement or a transit arrangement with a
>>> written
>>> contract, then that contract supports my 'rights' under that =20
>>> contract
>>> persuant to my responsibilities being fulfilled.
>
>> If you had ever read a peering agreement,
>
> I have; see this publicly available peering agreement [0], where in =20=
> clause 9
> we find the wording "Neither party shall assign its rights under this
> Agreement without the prior written consent of the other party." In =20=
> clause 5
> we find the wording "If ... there are significant breaches of the =20
> conditions
> of this agreement, both parties reserve the right unilaterally to =20
> immediately
> terminate the agreement ..." See what lies under the points of =20
> ellipsis by
> reading the whole (2.5 page) agreement; it is succinct, clear, and a =20=
> great
> model.
>
> Drifting off-topic; my participation in this thread terminated, =20
> unilaterally.
Actually, peering is on-topic. I'm sure there are many others out =20
there who are just as unaware of how things work on the Internet as =20
you are. That said, I'm not sure how many of them can read a peering =20=
agreement come to the conclusion that you then have a "right" to =20
connect to my network.
Going back a bit in case you forgot, we were discussing the fact you =20
have NO RIGHT to connect to my network, it is a privilege, not a =20
right. You responded with: "If I have either a peering agreement ... =20=
then that contract supports my 'rights' under that contract persuant =20
to my responsibilities being fulfilled." Then you posted this =20
contract as an example of those "rights". =46rom the contract you claim =
=20
to be "a great model":
<quote>
Each party=92s entire liability and sole remedies, whether in contract =20=
or in tort, in respect of any default
shall be as set out in this Clause or Clause 5. Each party=92s remedies =20=
against the other in respect of any
default shall be limited to damages and/or termination of this =20
agreement.
</quote>
I guess you could argue you have a right - at least until I type =20
"shut" on your BGP sessions. Then your rights end.
I need no reasoning to do this. None. And your recourse once I have =20=
done this is.... Hrmm, it seems your only recourse is to type "shut" =20=
on your side of the session. Yeah, lots of rights there.
Now, in practice, it is poor manners, and poor business judgement to =20
shut someone off without notice. It hurts your customers and mine, =20
and puts a very large strain on any other business dealings we have in =20=
progress or might have in the future. But manners and business deals =20=
are not rights. That should be plainly obvious to you (I hope).
Oh, and I notice you ignored my question, again. I won't bother copy/=20=
pasting it here just to have you continue to ignore it, I think the =20
audience gets the point - you don't have an answer.
--=20
TTFN,
patrick
