[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 17:00:35 CDT, Justin Shore said:
There may not be a law preventing you from asking him for proof of
legitimate customers, but there is a law preventing him from answering
you. Google for CPNI and red flag.
Hmm... I'm not sure how Yes, XYZ is a
Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
There is no law or even custom stopping me from asking you to prove you
are worthy to connect to my network.
There may not be a law preventing you from asking him for proof of
legitimate customers, but there is a law preventing him from answering
you. Google for
That does not stop me from asking. Also, I've never seen a viable,
legit biz that didn't have at least a couple customers who were
willing to let their name be used.
--
TTFN,
patrick
iPhone 3-J
(That's 3-Jezuz for the uninitiated.)
On Sep 22, 2008, at 18:00, Justin Shore [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 17:00:35 CDT, Justin Shore said:
There may not be a law preventing you from asking him for proof of
legitimate customers, but there is a law preventing him from answering
you. Google for CPNI and red flag.
Hmm... I'm not sure how Yes, XYZ is a customer of mine qualifies
On Sep 12, 2008, at 3:02 PM, Steve Gibbard wrote:
On Fri, 12 Sep 2008, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
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
On Sep 12, 2008, at 1:42 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
[On-list comment. Off-list comments longer.]
On Thursday 11 September 2008 22:23:35 Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
If I have either a peering agreement or a transit arrangement with a
written
contract, then that contract supports my 'rights' under
On Sep 12, 2008, at 1:43 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
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.
In fairness, he sent me an answer privately.
On Fri, 12 Sep 2008, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
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'
On Fri, 12 Sep 2008, Steve Gibbard wrote:
On Fri, 12 Sep 2008, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
Since this appears to be somebody who is contracting with lots of US
providers, their identity is presumably known. This discussion has now been
going on for long enough that it's presumably passed the
Gadi Evron wrote:
On Mon, 8 Sep 2008, Scott Weeks wrote:
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
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
On Thu, September 11, 2008 10:58 am, Eugeniu Patrascu 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 ?
Conversely, and sticking close to the 'clean house' metaphor, if someone
has a history of
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.
On Sep 11, 2008, at 8:50 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
On Thursday 11 September 2008 06:23:29 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is not a court. In court, if you are determined guilty a large
punishment may be exacted
Depeering is not a large punishment?
In the internet world, mass depeering /
On Sep 11, 2008, at 6:52 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
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
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
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
On Thursday 11 September 2008 18:37:59 Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Sep 11, 2008, at 8:50 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
On Thursday 11 September 2008 06:23:29 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is not a court. In court, if you are determined guilty a large
punishment may be exacted
Depeering is not
On Sep 11, 2008, at 9:11 PM, Lamar Owen wrote:
On Thursday 11 September 2008 18:37:59 Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Sep 11, 2008, at 8:50 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
On Thursday 11 September 2008 06:23:29 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is not a court. In court, if you are determined guilty a large
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, perhaps you can share any information with us on a legitimate client
you have?
--
Now why do you have to go there? Just to fan the flames for fun and profit?
:-(
scott
On Mon, 8 Sep 2008, Scott Weeks wrote:
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, perhaps you can share any information with us on a legitimate client
you have?
--
Now why do you have to go there? Just to fan the flames for fun and profit?
:-(
I haven't seen any
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 8 Sep 2008, Scott Weeks wrote:
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, perhaps you can share any information with us on a legitimate client
you have?
--
Now why do you have to go there? Just to fan the flames for fun and
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 10:59 AM, Scott Weeks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, perhaps you can share any information with us on a legitimate client
you have?
--
Now why do you have to go there? Just to fan the flames for fun and
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
On Mon, 8 Sep 2008, Randy Epstein wrote:
Obviously host lost some money now after buying a provider with a big
client that was just depeered, so it is now a financial concern.
Gadi.
On the floor .. dying here.
:) :)
I do not think it is appropriate for ISPs to have to prove or demonstrate the
legitimacy of their customer base
Here is the exact point of contention and the point where I think
people disagree. ISPs are the **first** line of defense against
malware and badware. They are the ones closest to
On Mon, 8 Sep 2008, Matthew Petach wrote:
On 9/8/08, Gadi Evron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 7 Sep 2008, InterCage - Russ wrote:
Thank you Russ. That is a great step in the right direction dropping this
one client. It is appreciated, although it's just one bad apple on a big
tree.
On Sep 7, 2008, at 4:32 AM, InterCage - Russ wrote:
Seeing the activity in regards to our company here at NANOG, I
believe this is the most reasonable and responsible place to respond
to the current issues on our network. We hope to obtain non-bias
opinion's and good honest and truthful
On Sep 7, 2008, at 11:58 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Sep 7, 2008, at 4:32 AM, InterCage - Russ wrote:
Seeing the activity in regards to our company here at NANOG, I
believe this is the most reasonable and responsible place to
respond to the current issues on our network. We hope to
29 matches
Mail list logo
