[43877] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Fwd: Re: Digital Island sponsors DoS attempt
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Quibell, Marc)
Fri Oct 26 17:48:02 2001
Message-ID: <EF4A9841BCC9D5119E28009027923DF0137081@yosemite.icn.state.ia.us>
From: "Quibell, Marc" <mquibell@icn.state.ia.us>
To: "'Patrick W. Gilmore'" <patrick@ianai.net>, nanog@merit.edu
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 16:46:52 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
That's great Pat, I especially liked the twist/jump from "upgrading to
DS3...etc" to "Who said I had to use a standardized method to deliver my web
page?". Intead of trying to figure out what your web page has to do with
our- standardized upgrades vs. non-standard, non-internet-community
sanctioned "internet performance enhancement" ping probes- debate, I give
up. I see that the subjects at hand are a big scramble in your gord.
Regardless, have a wonderful weekend.
Marc
-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick W. Gilmore [mailto:patrick@ianai.net]
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2001 4:33 PM
To: nanog@merit.edu; Quibell, Marc
Subject: RE: Fwd: Re: Digital Island sponsors DoS attempt
At 04:00 PM 10/26/2001 -0500, Quibell, Marc wrote:
>Don't be insulting Happy Gilmore.
My goodness. You are so original. Lord knows I ain't never heard that one
before.
Oh, three words - Pot, Kettle, Black.
>You said, "Certainly would not want someone to upgrade from a DS3 to an
OC3
>to "enhance internet
>traffic" from their site to me, or multi-home to make sure if one provider
>/ line dies their site is still available. And forget about using load
>balancers, Content Distribution Networks, etc."
>
>Talk about silly! Ever notice why STANDARD (hint) upgrades are warranted,
>while not even remotely connected to the subject at hand?
>S-T-A-N-D-A-R-D-I-Z-E-D. We all can use our brains and tell the difference
>between standard upgrades and standard load-balancing, as defined by
>numerous RFCs, and non-standard, uninformed haphazard methodology!
First: Who said I had to use a standardized method to deliver my web page?
Second: Most "standards" are in use before they are standardized (e.g. IP
Anycast).
Third: Last time I checked, you did not get to decide what was "warranted"
on my network / web server / whatever.
Fourth: You have yet to show you can use your brain. Uh, I mean, "use your
brain to tell the difference between standard and non-standard
methodology". (Yeah, that's what I meant. :)
>I made a point that basically said DI's unorthodoxed methodologies are not
>your choice (at least not until you discover them). You addressed that
point
>by saying I misinterpreted that, that "using a gizmo was my choice" and I
>said that the difference is that one is a choice, your choice, the other
is
>not. And I must also add that one affects only you while the other affects
>the entire Internet. Big difference, see it? Now take back that 'silly'
>comment! :)
No, you are still being silly.
I specifically take exception to your comment: "Usually, IP and such
technologies are the charge of the internet community and we form
committees, or use IEEE, IETF, RFCs, ARIN." Those bodies make a framework,
and we are allowed to be as creative inside (and sometimes outside) that
framework as we please. Period.
Furthermore, you stated: "I believe this to be the key as to why this is
wrong and why DI, or Akamai, should not be even allowed to 'help' the
internet." I did not ask your permission to be "allowed" to help the
Internet, or run my business. And after this thread, you can be assured I
never shall.
If you do not like the fact other people can do things on the Internet
which are not sanctioned by the RFCs, or you personally, I am afraid you
are in for a life full of disappointment. And I seriously doubt a single
network will give a gnat's ass whether it bothers you or not.
>Marc
--
TTFN,
patrick
