"damages caused to whom and amount to be spent by whom" - You are really good.


________________________________
From: Terrence Koeman
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2020 8:55 PM
To: Elad Cohen; Owen DeLong
Cc: Shane Ronan; North American Network Operators' Group
Subject: Re: RIPE NCC Executive Board election


"A degree in economics is not needed to know that if the damages of something 
is causing x2 the amount that can be spent to avoid the damages - then half of 
the amount should be spent."


The questions are: damages caused to whom and amount to be spent by whom (& who 
is going to make them)? If it were a simple case of weighing the aggregate 
costs of attacks against the aggregate costs of implementation of mitigation, 
then we would have seen universal implementation of BCP38[1] two decades ago.


Unfortunately, we don't live in a child's mind where things are simple. In 
reality the parties incurring the costs of attacks are not the same as those 
that aren't implementing the solutions to prevent them from occurring.


If your neighbor has a credit card debt of $20k on which he's paying 18% 
interest, and you have savings of $20k on which you are receiving 2% interest, 
then with your logic you should immediately pay off your neighbors' debt, 
because that'd be cheaper for you both, collectively.


But of obviously you wouldn't do this, because you're NOT a collective (your 
neighbors' wallet/bank account and yours are not the same) and thus you both 
need to be considered separately. You don't need a degree in economics to 
realise this, just a shred of common sense suffices.


If every network configured their own equipment as well as they wish others 
would, there wouldn't be a problem in the first place. Fact is, they won't. And 
getting someone that has already spent time and/or money on configuring their 
own equipment correctly to pay for the privilege of not getting attacked by the 
equipment of someone else that is either too lazy or cheap to do so is going to 
be a tall order.


[1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp38

--
Regards,
   Terrence Koeman, PhD/MTh/BPsy
     Darkness Reigns (Holding) B.V.

Please quote relevant replies.
Spelling errors courtesy of my 'smart'phone.
________________________________
From: Elad Cohen <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, 14 May 2020 18:12
To: Owen DeLong
Cc: Shane Ronan; North American Network Operators' Group
Subject: [SPAM-MS] Re: RIPE NCC Executive Board election


Me:
"A degree in economics is not needed to know that if the damages of something 
is causing x2 the amount that can be spent to avoid the damages - then half of 
the amount should be spent."

Toma:
> A degree in economics is not needed [..]
"Which is the common thing to say by the ones who don't have it."

You:
"simply wrong on legitimate technical grounds"


You are not a bigotry or hatred, you are just an imbecile.
________________________________
From: Owen DeLong <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2020 7:04 PM
To: Elad Cohen <[email protected]>
Cc: Töma Gavrichenkov <[email protected]>; Shane Ronan 
<[email protected]>; North American Network Operators' Group 
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: RIPE NCC Executive Board election

I don’t see hate. I see legitimate technical disagreement with your 
hair-brained schemes.

Perhaps, when a large collection of people with actual engineering experience 
and deep knowledge tell you that you are simply wrong on legitimate technical 
grounds, it would be wiser to rethink your position than to accuse them of 
bigotry and hatred.

Just a thought.

Owen

On May 13, 2020, at 16:48, Elad Cohen <[email protected]> wrote:


You start your posts with Peace but your posts are full of hate.
________________________________
From: Töma Gavrichenkov <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2020 2:17 AM
To: Elad Cohen <[email protected]>
Cc: Shane Ronan <[email protected]>; North American Network Operators' 
Group <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: RIPE NCC Executive Board election

Peace,

On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 2:14 AM Elad Cohen <[email protected]> wrote:
> A degree in economics is not needed [..]

Which is the common thing to say by the ones who don't have it.

I think, dixi.

--
Töma

Reply via email to