[33354] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: net.terrorism
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com)
Tue Jan 9 09:34:07 2001
From: bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com
Message-Id: <200101091343.NAA10548@vacation.karoshi.com>
To: sabri@bit.nl (Sabri Berisha)
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 13:43:03 +0000 (UCT)
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0101091419170.15666-100000@pomo.bit.nl> from "Sabri Berisha" at Jan 09, 2001 02:25:43 PM
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
> "Free" as in everybody decides their own policies. "Terrorism" as in
> forcing your policies on someone elses network.
That is not the definition of "terrorism".
From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) [web1913]:
Terrorism \Ter"ror*ism\, n. [Cf. F. terrorisme.]
The act of terrorizing, or state of being terrorized; a mode
of government by terror or intimidation. --Jefferson.
And if you agree to use my service, then you agree to my
"forcing" my policies on that agreement, just as I agree
to your "forcing" your policies on me. ... Thats not
intimidation, thats a business services contract.
> My point is not to announce something you won't route.
> If I want to make sure my traffic gets to that host, I can set up a static
> route to our second uplink. But it's not *me* who should be filtering. How
> do I know which other hosts are being announced and blackholed?
>
> --
> /* Sabri Berisha, non-interesting network dude.
Why should'nt you (or your suppliers) filter? (hint.. more RFC reading)
And please review your service contracts. If your suppliers
promise reachability to the "whole" Internet, its time to apply
the cluebat.
As usual, YMMV.
--bill
