[32370] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: ISPs as content-police or method-police
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Adrian Chadd)
Mon Nov 20 13:03:36 2000
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 02:00:43 +0800
From: Adrian Chadd <adrian@creative.net.au>
To: Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Message-ID: <20001121020039.O26008@ewok.creative.net.au>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <47FE39302BF73B4C93BC84B87341282C1F14@condor.lvrmr.mhsc.com>; from rmeyer@mhsc.com on Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 09:42:54AM -0800
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Mon, Nov 20, 2000, Roeland Meyer wrote:
> The ONLY one that should be even dreaming about doing something like this is
> the direct upstream to the leaf nodes, and then ONLY with permission.
> Otherwise, no ports should ever be filtered by any transit provider.
>
> By God, we PAY for open pipes and there are standard remedies when we don't
> get what we pay for.
You know, I *do* believe in unfiltered access to the internet. So would
all of you I bet.
However, I do not have faith in even a little tiny chunk of the users who
have access to the internet to have the slightest inkling of common sense.
Yes, I have valid reasons to spoof packets here at home since I have a
/24 routed here over a tunnel, but how many users would *you* give access
to do this? [1]
Now, I took the extra 30 minutes to figure out how to source-route packets
in FreeBSD to make my return packets work over this tunnel.
Why can't half-duplex satellite providers, to keep this example going,
actually implement something similar, rather than requiring providers to
spoof source addresses?
I'd hate to see the internet dissolve further into having court cases
decide what direction the internet takes.
2c,
Adrian
[1] Well, I *could* argue that since DoS *still* happens .. :-)
--
Adrian Chadd "God: Damn! I left pot everywhere!
<adrian@creative.net.au> Now I'll have to create Republicans!"
- Bill Hicks
