On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 8:42 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore <patrick@ianai.net> wrote:
2: Within a jurisdiction where North American operators have a good chance of having the law on their side in case of any network outage caused by the entity.
This is also a bit strange. Do your users never attach to a host outside the USofA?
m.root-servers.net i.root-servers.net www.ripe.net www.apnic.net oops!
3: Considered highly competent technically.
Here we agree.
except that even the 'good guys' make mistakes. Belt + suspenders please... is it really that hard for a network service provider to have a prefix-list on their customer bgp sessions?? L3 does it, ATT does it, Sprint does it, as do UUNET/vzb, NTT, GlobalCrossing ... seriously, it's not that hard.
OTOH: I would say that, until today, those who advocate not engaging in any kind of ethnic or political profiling would have considered 17557, as a national telco, a trusted route source.
no, unless they had some recourse (SFP agreement?) for such behaviours... clearly said agreement wasn't in place so the PCCW folks REALLY should have had some belt+suspenders approach in place. As an aside, I'm against the 'golden prefixes' idea, because it quickly devolves into a pay-for-play game where in the end everyone pays a disproportionate amount :( -Chris