I am sure if I looked into it more I could find some exploits related
to the sites.
I am sure if I looked into it more I could find some exploits related
to the sites.
-------------------------------------"Why software piracy might actually be good for companies."
Folks should clean their own house before pointing fingers at others...
My house may not be clean right now, but the cleaner is coming tomorrow. However, filth from their house is making my house smell. I am very happy they are willing to clean up, but it still smells for some reason.
Enough with analogies, you are making this discussion into a hostile environment for them to reply in.
What are you afraid of, anyway? Are you running a bullet-proof hosting farm?
When I worked at an ISP I can say that my house was very clean.
Takedowns were done in hours and we had a very large customer base. I
will take on the clean house topic any time... I have done hundreds if
not thousands of takedowns while I have worked at hosting companies,
it isn't that hard to keep the house clean.
However, what you have said in this topic has not been useful or
brought anything that might be interesting to light at all. Please
come back when you have something useful or productive to say.
Thanks,
James
And, again, yes he has. Absent any evidence that the hoster in question
*has* lots of white customers as your employer does/did, then the
question is still on the table, as far as I can see.
Cheers,
-- jra
Gadi Evron wrote:
Why should an ISP provide proof of the good behavior of their clients ?
Or in your conuntry you're considered guilty until proven otherwise ?
This is not a court. In court, if you are determined guilty a large punishment may be exacted (note: it's innocent until determined to be very likely guilty in criminal cases, innocent until probably guilty in civil cases); here, that is not the case.
They have a history of abuse; it's fair to be suspicious of them (why did they let the abuse last so long?) and ask for an example of a legitimate client. If they have a few, it should be easy to find one willing to be used as an example.
Conversely, and sticking close to the 'clean house' metaphor, if someone
has a history of tramping mud into your carpets every previous time
they've visited, is it unreasonable to ask them to present clean shoes
before letting them into your house again?
Regards,
Tim.
Depeering is not a large punishment?
In the internet world, mass depeering / de-transitting like we've see in this
instance is akin to capital punishment. By vigilantes. The US Old West
redux.
But even in a court of law in a criminal case a defense must be made,
otherwise the least sort of evidence of culpability can produce conviction;
the defendant must at least put on a defense to invalidate the culpatory
evidence. So when culpatory evidence is presented in these cases, requesting
exculpatory evidence is very reasonable.
Lack of a defense in a civil case will virtually guarantee a favorable
judgment for the plaintiff, however.
Lamar Owen wrote:
Lack of a defense in a civil case will virtually guarantee a favorable
judgment for the plaintiff, however.
Networks (at least in most countries) are 100% private entities who can
de-peer whoever they want for whatever reason they want.
You are confused.
Connecting to my network is a PRIVILEGE, not a right. You lose a criminal case, you lose rights (e.g. freedom to walk outside). Disconnecting you from my network is not denying any of your rights.
There is no law or even custom stopping me from asking you to prove you are worthy to connect to my network. You don't want to prove it, that's your right, just as it is my right to not connect to you.
Mind if I ask why you think you have any right to connect to my network if I do not want you to do so? For _any_ reason, including not showing me "legit" customers, political affiliation, or even the color of your hat?
In the internet world, mass depeering / de-transitting like we've
see in this instance is akin to capital punishment. By vigilantes.
The US Old West redux.Connecting to my network is a PRIVILEGE, not a right. You lose a
criminal case, you lose rights (e.g. freedom to walk outside).
Disconnecting you from my network is not denying any of your rights.There is no law or even custom stopping me from asking you to prove
you are worthy to connect to my network. You don't want to prove it,
that's your right, just as it is my right to not connect to you.Mind if I ask why you think you have any right to connect to my
network if I do not want you to do so? For _any_ reason, including
not showing me "legit" customers, political affiliation, or even the
color of your hat?
amidst all this high flyin' political theory discussion of rights, there
is an elephant in the room. as conditions to merger/purchase, there
were legal restrictions placed on one or more significant operators
regarding [de-]peering (i.e. your statement above is significantly
incorrect). my altzheimer's device tells me that those restrictions end
2008.12.31. expect change.
randy
amidst all this high flyin' political theory discussion of rights, there
is an elephant in the room. as conditions to merger/purchase, there
were legal restrictions placed on one or more significant operators
regarding [de-]peering (i.e. your statement above is significantly
incorrect). my altzheimer's device tells me that those restrictions end
2008.12.31. expect change.randy
SBC end-date is 2009-Dec-31.
Randy
The fact there is a temporary exception to the rule for two providers in the US who agreed to the exception for reasons other than peering / transit does not mean the rule is invalid.
As for (some of?) the exceptions expiring at the end of this calendar year, I'm not at all certain it will be a sea change. Contrary to popular belief, the US is not the center of the Internet any more. And even if it were, those providers - even the two combined - are not the center of the US Internet. Besides, wouldn't that just prove the rule anyway? 
The 'Net has become much more egalitarian. I would think that you of all people Randy would applaud the internationalization and flattening of the Internet.
amidst all this high flyin' political theory discussion of rights, there
is an elephant in the room. as conditions to merger/purchase, there
were legal restrictions placed on one or more significant operators
regarding [de-]peering (i.e. your statement above is significantly
incorrect). my altzheimer's device tells me that those restrictions end
2008.12.31. expect change.The fact there is a temporary exception to the rule for two providers in
the US who agreed to the exception for reasons other than peering /
transit does not mean the rule is invalid.
so sorry to have interrupted a deep discussion of political theory on
rights and unwritten rules with operational reality 
randy
No, I'm not, actually. As you say, it's every man (peer) for himself; is this
not a digital analog to the dynamic of the Old West?
If I have either a peering agreement or a transit arrangement with a written
contract, then that contract supports my 'rights' under that contract
persuant to my responsibilities being fulfilled.
But here on NANOG it sure looked like the gunfight at the OK Corral earlier as
the posse went after the bad guys. And, well, yes, the alleged 'bad guys'
might have deserved the penalty. But it was sure an interesting dynamic to
watch. Go back and read the whole thread; it is very enlightening.
But you don't have to get all defensive about it.
Cute.
But the "operational reality" is that you have no real expectation of connectivity to any other network.
This is not a court. In court, if you are determined guilty a large
punishment may be exactedDepeering is not a large punishment?
In the internet world, mass depeering / de-transitting like we've
see in this
instance is akin to capital punishment. By vigilantes. The US Old
West
redux.You are confused.
No, I'm not, actually.
We disagree.
As you say, it's every man (peer) for himself; is this
not a digital analog to the dynamic of the Old West?If I have either a peering agreement or a transit arrangement with a written
contract, then that contract supports my 'rights' under that contract
persuant to my responsibilities being fulfilled.
If you had ever read a peering agreement, you would know they contain no guarantees of connectivity. Your rights are actually set forth as to what you may not do (e.g. point default), not what you may do (e.g. connect to me). Well, unless you include "disconnect from me" as a right.
As for transit agreements, note that the network in question was kicked off both its transit providers in essentially nothing flat, so they obviously are not guaranteed either. (Not to mention at least two more the transit providers previous to this thread.)
But here on NANOG it sure looked like the gunfight at the OK Corral earlier as
the posse went after the bad guys. And, well, yes, the alleged 'bad guys'
might have deserved the penalty. But it was sure an interesting dynamic to
watch. Go back and read the whole thread; it is very enlightening.
Perhaps you should read up more on the "alleged" bad guys. I like to think of myself as a very open minded person, but child pr0n tends to upset essentially everyone. (And no, we are not talking 17 year olds, or even teenagers.)
But you don't have to get all defensive about it.
Not defensive, educational.
From the tone and content of your posts, I made the - perhaps erroneous - assumption you were unclear on how and why networks interconnected. But to try and verify my assumption, I asked you a question, which you ignored:
Mind if I ask why you think you have any right to connect to my network if I do not want you to do so?
Although you verified my assumption anyway (see point you tried to make about peering agreements above). That said, I like to understand the root of your confusion, so I am still interested in your answer.
But here on NANOG it sure looked like the gunfight at the OK Corral
earlier as the posse went after the bad guys.
we do not lack in self-righteousness or vigilanteism. and we seem to be
wannabe lawyers, economists, and sociologists, though only the $dieties
can guess why.
as the industry has become more and more commoditized, the 'grey people'
occupy most of middle management and sadly often senior management. our
arrogance does not earn us creds with these folk, with customers, or
with our peers [0].
it is sadly telling that <http://cluepon.net> is our major archive of
tools and techniques of the operators' trade (yes, i think it is a
trade), and it is not even well-linked from other sites. compare this
to other trades or engineering disciplines.
randy
[On-list comment. Off-list comments longer.]
> If I have either a peering agreement or a transit arrangement with a
> written
> contract, then that contract supports my 'rights' under that contract
> persuant to my responsibilities being fulfilled.
If you had ever read a peering agreement,
I have; see this publicly available peering agreement [0], where in clause 9
we find the wording "Neither party shall assign its rights under this
Agreement without the prior written consent of the other party." In clause 5
we find the wording "If ... there are significant breaches of the conditions
of this agreement, both parties reserve the right unilaterally to immediately
terminate the agreement ..." See what lies under the points of ellipsis by
reading the whole (2.5 page) agreement; it is succinct, clear, and a great
model.
Drifting off-topic; my participation in this thread terminated, unilaterally.
[0] - http://www.vix.at/vix-aconet-pa.html (PDF)
Actually, peering is on-topic. I'm sure there are many others out there who are just as unaware of how things work on the Internet as you are. That said, I'm not sure how many of them can read a peering agreement come to the conclusion that you then have a "right" to connect to my network.
Going back a bit in case you forgot, we were discussing the fact you have NO RIGHT to connect to my network, it is a privilege, not a right. You responded with: "If I have either a peering agreement ... then that contract supports my 'rights' under that contract persuant to my responsibilities being fulfilled." Then you posted this contract as an example of those "rights". From the contract you claim to be "a great model":
<quote>
Each party’s entire liability and sole remedies, whether in contract or in tort, in respect of any default
shall be as set out in this Clause or Clause 5. Each party’s remedies against the other in respect of any
default shall be limited to damages and/or termination of this agreement.
</quote>
I guess you could argue you have a right - at least until I type "shut" on your BGP sessions. Then your rights end.
I need no reasoning to do this. None. And your recourse once I have done this is.... Hrmm, it seems your only recourse is to type "shut" on your side of the session. Yeah, lots of rights there.
Now, in practice, it is poor manners, and poor business judgement to shut someone off without notice. It hurts your customers and mine, and puts a very large strain on any other business dealings we have in progress or might have in the future. But manners and business deals are not rights. That should be plainly obvious to you (I hope).
Oh, and I notice you ignored my question, again. I won't bother copy/pasting it here just to have you continue to ignore it, I think the audience gets the point - you don't have an answer.