On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 8:42 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
