RE: net.terrorism

[Sabri Berisha <sabri () bit nl>]

On Tue, 9 Jan 2001, John Belcher wrote:

> Sabri, did you not understand this...

I am far from perfect.

> > Announcing a netblock doesn't promise that every address in that block
> > exists or is reachable.  A network that is blocked for AUP violations
> > doesn't "exist", and usually returns the ICMP message "Unreachable --
> > Administratively Prohibited" specifically designed for such situations.
> > Have you read "Router Requirements"?

> It specifically states that a block can be announced but that does not
> guarantee that all hosts will be reachable.  You buy transit from abovenet,
> the block in question goes against their AUP, live with it.

I can live with the fact that they don't route that traffic. But they
should not tell me that they will...

> And furthermore, how can you even begin to take part in this
> conversation if you haven't read all the relevant literature?

Forgive my arrogancy but I don't need "relevant literature" for an ethical
question like this.

> I also strongly suggest you think twice before you accuse a company of
> "terrorism" in the future.

What would you call it then?

-- 
/*  Sabri Berisha, non-interesting network dude.
 *
 *  CCNA, BOFH, Systems admin Linux/FreeBSD
 */