RE: Fwd: Re: Digital Island sponsors DoS attempt

["Quibell, Marc" <mquibell () icn state ia us>]

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