Sean Donelan wrote:

On Sun, 12 November 2000, "Mark Mentovai" wrote:

...

The drive to "slam" is pushed by dollars. I can't think of any situation in which someone might profit from announcing address space without authorization. The problems facing the Internet are mostly due to laziness and lack of clue, enabled by an experimental infrastructure designed to support neither of these things. IP assumes non-hostile, non-lazy, and non-clueless nodes.

Sure it is. When I asked why did providers announced addresses improperly, I've been told by both Sprint and UUNET engineers "because they paid us and you don't."

But these problems were corrected, no? The point I'm trying to make is that these operators don't make any additional profits by doing the wrong thing and then fixing it (as they did, unless someone can point to instances in which brokenness wasn't fixed after it was brought to their attention) than by doing the right thing from the start (verifying announcements, etc.) The way I see it, aside from the extra time and "hassle" involved in doing it right, doing it wrong and doing it right are the same in the bookkeeper's eyes. If Sprint and UU KNOWINGLY make or pass bad advertisements, then there's no hope for making progress within the community. I really hope that this is not the case. Mark