[193736] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: gagging *IX directors re snoop/block orders
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Patrick W. Gilmore)
Fri Feb 17 12:34:24 2017
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 11:46:59 -0500
In-Reply-To: <20170217160711.GX15415@sizone.org>
To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
There is one problem: The article is factually incorrect on multiple =
points. So comparing A to B when B is a fairy tale does not make much =
sense.
The proposed constitutional changes are in the public domain.
--=20
TTFN,
patrick
P.S. Full disclosure, I am a LINX director. So maybe I=E2=80=99m saying =
this to protect myself. If only you could read the proposed changes and =
decide for yourself. Oh, wait=E2=80=A6.
> On Feb 17, 2017, at 11:07 AM, Ken Chase <math@sizone.org> wrote:
>=20
> Just meant it as a parallel operational example. Both situations, =
while legally
> distinct, present the same operational issues.=20
>=20
> Purposely breaking things - and then being required to keep the =
breakage secret -
> is going to mess up a whole lot of things. (How does Chinese operators =
handle this?)
>=20
> Additionally the snooping is an issue, though I can't imagine anyone =
depends on
> an IX for maintaining secrecy at a contract level :/ Today's =
realities.
>=20
> /kc
>=20
>=20
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 10:03:00AM -0600, Mike Hammett said:
>> I'm not sure Cogent is on any IXes?=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> -----=20
>> Mike Hammett=20
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions=20
>> http://www.ics-il.com=20
>>=20
>> Midwest-IX=20
>> http://www.midwest-ix.com=20
>>=20
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>=20
>> From: "Ken Chase" <math@sizone.org>=20
>> To: nanog@nanog.org=20
>> Sent: Friday, February 17, 2017 9:56:23 AM=20
>> Subject: gagging *IX directors re snoop/block orders=20
>>=20
>> And when you go to figure out why that IP wont ping through Cogent on=20=
>> your exchange, and start troubleshooting but can't get any answers=20
>> as to why things are bust...=20
>>=20
>> [ Clearly now an operational issue for NANOG. ]=20
>>=20
>> Purposely breaking routing and not being able to talk about why is =
going to=20
>> set many orgs at odds with their basic operational charters. I expect =
that=20
>> a paid service will work when it's provided, including help debugging =
their end.=20
>>=20
>> This is slightly different from a service provider, ostensibly you =
can=20
>> go elsewhere to get service - but when you are a member of a =
nonprofit *IX=20
>> (as we are with TorIX), things get a lot more complex.=20
>>=20
>> I imagine contract lawyers are going to be all over this.=20
>>=20
>> =
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/02/17/linx_snoopers_charger_gagging_ord=
er/=20
>>=20
>> (their typo in the url)=20
>>=20
>=20
> /kc=20
> --=20
> Ken Chase - math@sizone.org Guelph/Toronto Canada=20
