nanog mailing list archives
Re: network policy (was Re: Stealth Blocking)
From: Paul Vixie <vixie () mfnx net>
Date: 26 May 2001 20:07:39 -0700
following up my own post:
If the contract between the network owner and her customers does not allow this type of policy-level traffic rejection, then she may have to stop. At best this would be a matter for an arbitrator or civil court to determine. It's certainly not something that third parties, including third parties whose traffic is being rejected, to have any say in. Many restaurants have a "No shirt, no shoes, no service" sign out front. Perhaps they lose the business of shirtless and/or shoeless persons. But it's their business to lose. Outsider busybodies have no right to override the expressed wishes of business owners.
i invite debate, preferrably in private but i'll let challengers choose the forum. i've received absolutely no feedback on the above post, which either means that it's too correct to argue with, or too incorrect to bother with. if you think it's the latter, i'd like to hear from you, privately or not.
Current thread:
- Re: Scanning (was Re: Stealth Blocking), (continued)
- Re: Scanning (was Re: Stealth Blocking) Greg A. Woods (May 26)
- ORBS (Re: Scanning) E.B. Dreger (May 27)
- Re: ORBS (Re: Scanning) Randy Bush (May 27)
- Re: ORBS (Re: Scanning) J.D. Falk (May 27)
- Re: Scanning (was Re: Stealth Blocking) Steve Sobol (May 27)
- Re: Scanning (was Re: Stealth Blocking) Christopher A. Woodfield (May 27)
- Re: ORBS (Re: Scanning) Albert Meyer (May 27)
- RE: Stealth Blocking jlewis (May 24)
- RE: Stealth Blocking alex (May 24)
- network policy (was Re: Stealth Blocking) Paul Vixie (May 25)
- Re: network policy (was Re: Stealth Blocking) Paul Vixie (May 26)
- RE: Stealth Blocking David Schwartz (May 23)
- RE: Stealth Blocking David Schwartz (May 23)
- Re: Stealth Blocking Shawn McMahon (May 24)
- Re: Stealth Blocking Christopher B. Zydel (May 23)
- RE: Stealth Blocking David Schwartz (May 23)