[33371] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: net.terrorism
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Sabri Berisha)
Tue Jan 9 12:55:36 2001
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 17:01:20 +0100 (MET)
From: Sabri Berisha <sabri@bit.nl>
To: John Belcher <jbelcher@xram.com>
Cc: <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <002901c07a53$40249f30$7b111fac@onepromisehq.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.31.0101091653110.4647-100000@linux.bit.nl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Tue, 9 Jan 2001, John Belcher wrote:
> Sabri, did you not understand this...
I am far from perfect.
> > Announcing a netblock doesn't promise that every address in that block
> > exists or is reachable. A network that is blocked for AUP violations
> > doesn't "exist", and usually returns the ICMP message "Unreachable --
> > Administratively Prohibited" specifically designed for such situations.
> > Have you read "Router Requirements"?
> It specifically states that a block can be announced but that does not
> guarantee that all hosts will be reachable. You buy transit from abovenet,
> the block in question goes against their AUP, live with it.
I can live with the fact that they don't route that traffic. But they
should not tell me that they will...
> And furthermore, how can you even begin to take part in this
> conversation if you haven't read all the relevant literature?
Forgive my arrogancy but I don't need "relevant literature" for an ethical
question like this.
> I also strongly suggest you think twice before you accuse a company of
> "terrorism" in the future.
What would you call it then?
--
/* Sabri Berisha, non-interesting network dude.
*
* CCNA, BOFH, Systems admin Linux/FreeBSD
*/
