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!

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

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. :) 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