[33440] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: UUNET peering policy
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Adam Rothschild)
Thu Jan 11 00:51:54 2001
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 00:50:37 -0500
From: Adam Rothschild <asr@latency.net>
To: "Brian W." <bri@sonicboom.org>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Message-ID: <20010111005036.A32682@og.latency.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0101101650030.2267-100000@cx175057-a.ocnsd1.sdca.home.com>; from bri@sonicboom.org on Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 04:50:39PM -0800
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 04:50:39PM -0800, Brian W. wrote:
> Theres been a bit of an update, see a link on www.slashdot.org.
Or not. Here are a few notable quotes, for people too busy to read
the entire thread:
"Wonderful- they're letting people 'peer' into their network. This
will obviously just become another option for script kiddies to
exploit. Us sysadmins go through years of training to SECURE
systems, and now they go and let people peer into them. I bet they
let people take files, too. Just like those piracy programs, but
worse. Doesn't the thought of someone peering at your hard drive
make anyone else nervous?"
"Last I checked, AOL *only* 'peers' at MAE East, and refuses to
private-peer with anyone, with the possible exception of Exodus. So
I doubt they'd wanna play ball with UUNet anyway [...]"
Heh. Further proof that Slashdot is (with a few exceptions, of
course) an excellent example of the blind leading the blind. ;)
-adam
