Owen wrote: Ø I don’t mind waiting two weeks for your reply… I’ll still be here.
Careful what you wish for... Marilson Em qua, 8 de mai de 2019 às 16:18, Owen DeLong <[email protected]> escreveu: > > > On May 7, 2019, at 7:46 PM, Marilson Mapa <[email protected]> wrote: > > Owen, I almost cried with the paradise you described. > Ø people of good will and good character > > Ø like a small town where everyone could leave their doors unlocked > > In the 20th century? Steve Jobs described a very different environment. I > was there and I was already an adult, and this paradise only existed in the > hippy communities sprinkled with marijuana. > > Actually, I visited such a place in 2005 as an adult. The place was > Naithon, Phuket, Thailand. > > It is not a hippy community at all and I did not encounter any Marijuana > there. I’m sure it was probably available (it was illegal there at the > time, but many laws in Thailand have rather limited enforcement and for the > most part as long as you’re not harming anyone or making a fool of yourself > in public it’s live and let live), but I wasn’t looking for it. I didn’t > encounter the aroma of anyone else imbibing. > > Besides, I did not mention the creation of the Internet. Read again: “But > the BGP has at its origin a critical design flaw.” > > BGP was created during a time in the internet before the WWW and before > all of the problems it brought to the internet. > > In fact, BGP version 4 (the still current version) existed during this > early time in the internet. I was there. I was an adult. I was running > routers. You, by your own admission, were not running routers at the time, > so perhaps accept that I know somewhat more about this history than you do. > > I mentioned the creation of BGP that replaced EGP, with policy-based > routing, a routing based on a set of non-technical rules, defined by > Autonomous Systems, to BGP4 designed to withstand the problems caused by > the great growth of the Internet. > > Yes, I remember it well. BGP4’s major enhancement vs. prior versions was > the introduction of CIDR to cope with the growth of the routing table. This > was a problem encountered well before the frenzy of e-commerce, web sites, > etc. Literally, people were still managing routers with Telnet. BARRnet was > still propagating RIP announcements from their customers into BGP. The > security model at the time on the internet was literally that of a small > town where only good actors were expected to participate. > > I have a file with 1.3 GB of criminal attitudes from ISPs, Registrars and > ICANN, protecting and hiding spammers and scammers. Scammers who were often > the providers themselves. Since 2014 I have sent spam and scam reports to > these institutions. There were hundreds of ISPs, and everyone, without > exception, protected and concealed their customers. So keep these old > wives’ tale for your grandchildren. > > > On the internet back then, a lot happened in 8 years… BGP4 was introduced > with RFC-4271 in 2006. We must consider the environment of that time when > we are going to judge those who designed and built BGP4, not the > environment of 2014. > > > Ø perhaps you would have a legitimate accusation > > One? I have 1.3 GB. You insist on disqualifying me for not having the > technical competence to discuss these problems. Not being the professional > that you are, is a reason for pride. If not, let's see: I am an architect > and urban planner. I have been trained to provide comfort, security and > well-being to people in their homes, workplaces, amusements and in multiple > activities inside and outside the buildings. While your profession is > marked by providing irritation and malaise to billions of people.)) > > No, you have 1.3GB of accusations against bad actors on the internet 8+ > years after BGP4 was created. I am talking about your accusations against > the designers of BGP4. > > Ø I’m telling you that I don’t have good answers to those questions and > that I believe the RIRs to be the wrong tool for the job. > Ø You are again mistaken. > > Ø Yesterday was “out of scope” and today I believe it is still out of > scope. > > It is outside the scope of the Registrars, it is outside the scope of the > RIRs, it is outside the scope of ICANN ... It is out of the scope of all. > Should we appeal to Pope Francis? Maybe to the Queen of England… > > It is in the scope of those who run routers… Find them in ISP fora and at > the IETF. > > It is in the scope of the legislators who choose to regulate these things… > Find them in whatever governmental structures apply in your locale. > > You say “registrars” and “RIRs” as if they are separate groups. The RIRs > are the registrars/registries for numbers. If you’re talking about DNS > registrars, then I’m not sure how they entered this thread as we’re talking > about the hijacking of numbers and names do not enter the discussion. > > Since ICANN’s only role in numbers is to maintain the central free pool > and pass large blocks of numbers to the RIRs upon validated request, I’m > not sure what role you think they could have in addressing numbers > hijacking, but please do explicate. > > I’m pretty sure this is out of scope for the Pope unless you want to pass > laws governing the hijacking of numbers within the country known as the > Vatican or set policies that Catholic Churches will not hijack other > entity’s routes. (To the best of my knowledge, the Catholic Church for all > it’s many foibles is not a significant source of BGP hijacking, someone > please correct me if I’m wrong about that). > > I suppose the Queen of England could serve as your advocate in parliament > if you convince her, but I suspect you’re more likely to have greater > success in approaching MPs directly. Given your writing style, I suspect > you should start with the house of commons, but you’re certainly free to > contact the lords if that is your preference. > > This situation you created is very comfortable, is not it? When no one is > responsible we have no one's land. Not the paradise you created in the 20th > century. But your old wild far west of the 18th and 19th centuries. The > insistence on not demanding ethical behavior from the community and respect > for their AUPs and ToSs takes them to the police pages of the newspapers. > The Economist coined the acronym BAADD for tech giants as a threat to > democracy. I coined the acronym GGM21C - the Great Global Mafia of the 21st > Century. The billionaires fines are being applied and the community insists > on doing nothing. > > Actually, the situation I have described (not created) is not comfortable > at all. If I can find a way that ARIN is responsible and can control the > situation, then I can find a way that the problem can be solved relatively > easily. Unfortunately, since I live in reality, I must describe the > situation as it actually exists on the ground and not how we might imagine > we wish it had been created. > > I have never said that no-one is responsible. I have said that those who > run routers are responsible. Those who propoagate illegitimate > advertisements are responsible. Those who originate illegitimate > advertisements are responsible. Those who accept illegitimate > advertisements are partially responsible and fully responsible if they pass > them along to others. The one thing that ALL of those people who are > responsible have in common… THEY RUN ROUTERS. > > I repeat: Mr. Ash's swamp is not on prop-266, it's on this corrupt > internet that treats the population as beef cattle. > > I’m guessing this is some reference to Pokemon (based on brief Google > search). Afraid I’m not familiar. > > In any case, it’s hard for me to understand what you mean by “this corrupt > internet” since there is not really any single cohesive entity that can be > called “the internet”. What we refer to for convenience as “the internet” > is the very large collection of thousands (maybe even millions) of > independently owned and operated networks that happen to use the same > protocol and through a variety of mechanisms make it possible for packets > from any node on any one of them to reach virtually any other node on any > of the networks in question. > > Referring to “this corrupt internet” is kind of like referring to “this > corrupt race” or “this corrupt society” or “this corrupt planet full of > inhabitants”. It has no legitimate meaning. > > In any group so large, one will have a variety of actors. Whether any > individual actor is good or bad is a value judgment made by individuals, > laws, governments, courts, or others. > > Whether a society as a whole is corrupt is a much more difficult > classification and is generally unlikely to be accurate in either direction > due to the presence of both corrupt and non-corrupt individuals in any > given group. > > Owen > > P.S. I don’t mind waiting two weeks for your reply… I’ll still be here. > > >
_______________________________________________ ARIN-PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
