[33507] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: How does one make not playing nice with each other scale? (Wa
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mathew Butler)
Sat Jan 13 17:36:12 2001
Message-ID: <F062E72E4BA2D4119F1700B0D03D205F3AAC@mail.tonbu.com>
From: Mathew Butler <mbutler@tonbu.com>
To: 'Mark Mentovai' <mark-list@mentovai.com>,
Paul Vixie <vixie@mfnx.net>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 14:27:28 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C07DB0.02BED1F0"
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
------_=_NextPart_001_01C07DB0.02BED1F0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
I'll point out that someone banning a site for AUP violations should only be
able to affect their own network, since policies are supposed to be
organization-level. (Thus, inflicting your policy decision on someone else
is a very gray area, legally and ethically.)
The reason why MAPS-RBL works (and is legally protected) is because everyone
who uses it must -consent- to using it, and take positive action on their
end to configure it. This means that each organization generates and
enforces their own policy, though with assistance from an outside
consultancy. However, in this case, AboveNet is inflicting policy
decisions on transit routes =without consent=. (It's obvious this is
without consent, otherwise this thread would never have come up.)
It brings up an interesting point, but the law has held in the past that
boycotts are only effective and legal if they're voluntary, and if coercion
is involved then it become "intimidation tactics" of "organized crime". I
can't for the life of me imagine how the Internet is any different -- maybe
if you tried to apply turnpike or private highway rules to it, but those
rules are generally based on consent, as well.
Just some thoughts...
-Mat Butler
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Mentovai [mailto:mark-list@mentovai.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2001 10:26 AM
To: Paul Vixie
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: How does one make not playing nice with each other scale?
(Was: net.terrorism)
There are a few things that would stand in the way of adoption of something
like this: first, each anti-route would require manual configuration, and
that comes with its own set of problems. Another potential issue (this is
purely theoretical, I'm not referring to any past, present, or future
situation in particular) is that providers trying to blackhole a certain
site for AUP violations may want to negatively impact reachability as much
as possible, rather than purely keeping the offending traffic off their
network. These folks wouldn't want to advertise anti-routes because the
resulting blackhole avoidance would encourage others to take working
alternate paths, which does less harm to the site in question.
Still, this may be a beneficial, even if little-used, addition. Thoughts?
Mark
------_=_NextPart_001_01C07DB0.02BED1F0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version =
5.5.2653.12">
<TITLE>RE: How does one make not playing nice with each other scale? =
(Was: net.terrorism)</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>I'll point out that someone banning a site for AUP =
violations should only be able to affect their own network, since =
policies are supposed to be organization-level. (Thus, inflicting =
your policy decision on someone else is a very gray area, legally and =
ethically.)</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>The reason why MAPS-RBL works (and is legally =
protected) is because everyone who uses it must -consent- to using it, =
and take positive action on their end to configure it. This means =
that each organization generates and enforces their own policy, though =
with assistance from an outside consultancy. However, =
in this case, AboveNet is inflicting policy decisions on transit routes =
=3Dwithout consent=3D. (It's obvious this is without consent, =
otherwise this thread would never have come up.)</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>It brings up an interesting point, but the law has =
held in the past that boycotts are only effective and legal if they're =
voluntary, and if coercion is involved then it become =
"intimidation tactics" of "organized crime". =
I can't for the life of me imagine how the Internet is any different -- =
maybe if you tried to apply turnpike or private highway rules to it, =
but those rules are generally based on consent, as well.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Just some thoughts...</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>-Mat Butler</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>-----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>From: Mark Mentovai [<A =
HREF=3D"mailto:mark-list@mentovai.com">mailto:mark-list@mentovai.com</A>=
]</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2001 10:26 AM</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>To: Paul Vixie</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Cc: nanog@merit.edu</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Subject: Re: How does one make not playing nice with =
each other scale?</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>(Was: net.terrorism)</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>There are a few things that would stand in the way of =
adoption of something</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>like this: first, each anti-route would require =
manual configuration, and</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>that comes with its own set of problems. =
Another potential issue (this is</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>purely theoretical, I'm not referring to any past, =
present, or future</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>situation in particular) is that providers trying to =
blackhole a certain</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>site for AUP violations may want to negatively =
impact reachability as much</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>as possible, rather than purely keeping the =
offending traffic off their</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>network. These folks wouldn't want to =
advertise anti-routes because the</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>resulting blackhole avoidance would encourage others =
to take working</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>alternate paths, which does less harm to the site in =
question.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Still, this may be a beneficial, even if little-used, =
addition. Thoughts?</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Mark</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C07DB0.02BED1F0--
