[27983] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: peering wars revisited? PSI vs Exodus
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Majdi S. Abbas)
Tue Apr 4 00:51:04 2000
From: "Majdi S. Abbas" <msa@samurai.sfo.dead-dog.com>
Message-Id: <200004040448.VAA13177@samurai.sfo.dead-dog.com>
To: nanog@merit.edu
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 21:48:46 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <v0421010bb50f04f445db@[192.168.0.1]> from "Gordon Cook" at Apr 04, 2000 12:15:24 AM
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
> Hi Paul
>
> 1. I am doing what press is HERE to do. *INFORM*
So, it's acceptable to publish a leaked circuit design?
Software design? Source code? All those things are marked
Company Confidental too... Where does it stop...
> 2. I am sure you can figure out that this was sent to me by an
> affected party who wanted it leaked.
That's irrelevant.
> 3. This concerns the ability of a publicly traded company to give
> its customers adequate service on the Internet.
PSI is not the Internet. PSI is becoming more and more
irrelevant as their customers go elsewhere.
> 4. Exodus certainly had to tell its content providers that they were
> gong to face problems in getting to somewhere between 5 and 10% of
> the Internet.
Is reduced capacity a 'problem' per se? Unless you've got
their traffic stats, I don't see how you can make this claim.
> 5. But Exodus was also embarrassed by the deterioration in its
> service that it was allowing to be inflicted on its customers. So
> Exodus, in an attempt to limit the damage, marked the email
> "customer confidential communication."
Maybe they just don't want to make a public announcement
every time a peering arrangement changes, and maybe they don't
want to deal with people overreacting over such a change.
> 6. I am NOT an Exodus customer! And since I am press I have a
> personally reasonable obligation, should I choose to exercise it, to
> inform people that some important peering links have been broken.
The fact that you're not an Exodus customer means you
shouldn't have received that in the first place; regardless of the
'wishes' of the person that leaked it to you, the intended
distribution is quite clear on that message.
> 7. Exodus has a problem. In marking that customer confidential it
> appears to me that it was trying to cover up its own problem and I
> imagine in doing so it was making some already upset customers
> further upset.
I don't see how an Exodus problem or lack thereof justifies
poor ethical behaviour.
> 8. The sender of the message quite explicitly said I hope the press
> covers this. Therefore there was not a shred of doubt as to his
> intent.
So?
> In my opinion, if someone chooses to leak it to me, except for my
> relationship to the leaker, I have no obligation to exodus or anyone
> else. My default mode of operation has always been to keep the
> identity of the leaker CONFIDENTIAL. It is a subject of interest to
> me and I think to list readers.
-snip-
If you were truly trying to cover this, in a journalistic
sense, why not talk to PSI, and ask them about it? Of late, they've
been promoting a supposedly open peering policy...what would make
a company that claims to peer with anyone that will drag a line to
them sever that connection, or did they? I can think of all sorts
of obvious questions to be asking people in both places, and you
don't appear to have asked any of them.
I think that many of us would have no problem with you
reporting the information, had you done so without leaking that
notice. Reporting consists of a lot more than leaking confidential
information.
--msa
