[OCCAID] Proposal for EINTAP

[Miles Nordin]

>>>>> "mn" == Michael Nicks <nicksm at ioport.com> writes:
>>>>> "sjc" == Scott J Clifford <clifford at cnacs.occaid.org> writes:

I guess I am way late in posting this.  I feel bad when I take time
away from your technical activities making you write lengthy responses
to stuff like this.  However among my friends, you guys get
bad-mouthed about policy stuff every time your name comes up, so I
think I need to go on-record.

Scott---thanks for the change to the EINTAP policy.  I'll live with it. :)


    mn> Why is it odd that an organization would have disciplinary
    mn> actions for undesirable behavior/actions?

Nothing, but I don't agree that the action (dnsspam) is undesireable.
Rather, the defended argument I'm hearing here is, the _person_ is
undesireable, and people who want long hostnames that spell silly
things are ``childish'' and need to be excluded.  They must be
excluded to avoid DDoSes and a preponderance of members that are
somehow non-contributing.

    mn> It seems perfectly normal to me, for quality control.

    mn> If you aren't doing it, what you do you have to worry about?

You can't be serious?  ``First, they came for the jews, and I wasn't a
jew.''  This is very frustrating for me.  Many of you seem to think
you are somehow above ideological concerns.

    mn> DNS Spam looks bad over all for the organization because it
    mn> reflects on part of the userbase the organization is
    mn> associated with, kiddies.

   sjc> But if you were to do the same out of address space that
   sjc> represents OCCAID, it makes us nothing but look like bunch of
   sjc> children.

I think concern about appearances and what other people think is a bad
motivation, and that we should retreat from such positions.  But if
you really do care about that, then you may also be interested to see
what the so-called ``children'' on irc think of you, since of course
everyone on irc is a child:

-----8<-----
14:42 <@souterrain> The TCAM has _nothing_ to do with the routing function, 
                    though.
14:42 <@carton> right
14:42 <@carton> well.  no.
14:42 <@carton> but, in this case it is bullshit
14:43 <@souterrain> TCAM == Layer 2.
14:43 <@carton> and like, linksys don't even hav eeanyt
14:43 <@carton> no CAM layer 2, TCAM layer 3 switching.
14:43 <@carton> TCAM thrashing is what occaid guys were complaining using L3 
                switch rather than router at the core.
14:43 <@carton> TCAM is too small.  so it keeps aging out entries and getting 
                reloaded by the router-on-a-stick or routerboard or whatver.
14:44 <@souterrain> I'm not convinced of the OCCAID guys' credibility after I
                    found out about their Layer 10 shit.
14:46 <@souterrain> I'd really like to see what switch they were using at their
                    core.
14:46 < shardy> what layer 10 shit do they have?
14:48 <@souterrain> IRC is childish, DNS spam...
-----8<-----

Arbitrary policies like this anti-DNSspam stuff are not reasonable on
any world-class transit network, and certainly do not enhance your
reputation.

I've had similar discussions in person with others at alt.coffee in
NYC.  Although we mostly share your opinions about ``quality'' people
on irc and have retreated to private networks and channels, I haven't
found anyone in my circle of friends that doesn't find this DNSspam
thing objectionable and embarassing, much less anyone who supports it.

All three of these ``children'' quoted above are older than James, one
has children of his own, and although though professionally we
probably have less responsibility than James does, we all maintain
corporate networks for a living.  Your stereotyping just...makes me
bristle.  Why do I have to say ``even has children of his own'' to
prevent you from dismissing a quotation just because it came from an
irc channel?  sorry---I will try to stay productive and patiently
explain my concerns, but I'm really kind of pissed off.  I sort of
felt like most of this stuff I'm saying was obvious.

   sjc> OCCAID is also planning to register as a 501(c)3 non profit
   sjc> corporation this year sometime. How do you think we can expect
   sjc> companies and businesses to continue to donate to the project
   sjc> when there are bunch of seven year olds

By running a quality transit network with a predictable, transparent,
simple, and free-speech-oriented AUP that limits itself to shielding
you from liability and ensuring the network's survival, without making
dangerous superficial judgements about who is a quality-person
endpoint and who is a child, or worse yet making such judgements
behind closed doors and then codifying the Jim Crowe laws to implement
the judgement into the policy rather than the arbitrary judgement
itself.

Our collective is working on getting together enough money to switch
from our $330/mo sDSL to an he.net T1, and we now have one more
motivation to do so.  While I'd rather get service from any good ISP
in S&D and donate any hurricane electric premium to you, were I can
support and participate in the emergence of something I find
interesting, I...don't think it's an understatement to say I have a
moral problem with policies like this.  At this point I'm looking at
commercial IPv6 not just because I want to make sure I'm free to do
what I want, but because I'm having to deal with the stigma of being
associated with OCCAID among my friends.

I also think it is questionable even from the most cynical perspective
to run your network pandering to the hypothetical desires of some
nebulous business interests rather than the actual members you have
_right now_, several of whom don't want these types of stifling and
judgemental rules---who, even if they are not breaking the rules, have
a problem with their *EXISTENCE*.

Your side's response, ``you can do what you want---you just have to
get another prefix'' is kind of silly.  Of course I will feel damn
well welcome do what I want if I leave OCCAID.  Your offer to provide
transit for a non-OCCAID prefix is disingenuous(sp?), because unless I
somehow get a /32 prefix, as I understand it you will not actually
advertise it nor will anyone accept it, so you may route it to other
OCCAID members through special configuration, but _transit_, no.

Thus, not only is your suggestion impractical for the endpoint and
disingenuous in it's appearance of an offer, but it is technically
irresponsible because it advocates adding garbage to the IPv6
default-free zone to work around a silly DNSspam policy.  I'm now
encouraged to register an ASN for $500, pay ARIN membership for
another $500, and present some business plan to ARIN so that I can get
a /32, because that is apparently what I need to do to get the freedom
and respect that I want.

IPv6 addresses are supposed to be assigned and implemented to maximize
aggregation, not labels of network allegiance or instruments of
content-oriented policy.

   sjc> we will act if there is illegal traffic flowing 

yes, of course.

   sjc> since that's requirement by the law.

I think you are not deputized in this way, and that you are making
some assumptions that, albeit prudent, aren't supported by the law.
In some cases, can't you also lose some legal protections of claiming
to be a ``common carrier'' if you enforce too arbitrarily?  I agree
you should act against obviously illegal traffic---I'm just saying
your ``since'' clause is sloppy and does not match the BCP way other
ISPs think about this issue, and your willingness to take on
responsibilities of police, judge, jury, and executioner is dangerous.

But although oddly analagous, it is moot, as acting as required by law
is worlds apart from this ``DNS spam'' stuff.  At least we can all
agree DNS spam is legal, although some of us seem to think it is
some kind of ``network abuse'', while I do not.

    mn> I think enough people here are against DNS abuse that the
    mn> policy laid out here represents the best interests of the
    mn> OCCAID community,

    mn> As previously said, if you have your own address space, feel
    mn> free to create useless and immature DNS PTRs such as
    mn> i.am.not.on.occaid.address.space.lols.

Michael---you sound like you are speaking for the community or trying
to inform us all of what policy OCCAID has handed down to us.  I know
who Scott is, but since you sound like you are attempting to end this
debate conclusively, I must ask you to make clear, who are you?


To sum up, what I am trying to say is, anti-irc anti-child policies
are designed to exclude people.  I may or may not be among the people
they are designed to exclude, but they're definitely having that
effect.  If you think I'm childish, that i'm irresponsible, that I'm
not interested in nor able to contribute to OCCAID, then I think you
are wrong, and I'm also somewhat offended.  

But you are succeeding in excluding me in a very real way, and when
our house next meets to discuss our he.net switchover, I *guarantee*
you this DNSspam thing will come up.  I know that you could all get
along very well without a small, and presently basically useless,
``end node'' like myself, but I'm asking, what is your real intent,
what are you really trying to foster when you say ``experiment,'' and
are these types of policies really in place because they are effective
at achieving your goals, or for some other less practical reason?  My
own opinion is that they're counterproductive, dangerous to the
network's survival and to the climate of internet free speech, and
embarrassing.

-- 
racoon: something error happened SA recovering.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 304 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman.twdx.net/pipermail/occaid/attachments/20050113/2a7d6de5/attachment.bin