[arin-discuss] Importance of Corporate Governance

Your message has nothing to do with ARIN business or ARIN corporate
governance, and merely continues an attack on my reputation. I should
probably not indulge you with a response, but these subjects are of
concern to ISPs who make up a majority of the ARIN membership.

On Wed, 6 Feb 2008, Todd Underwood wrote:

> <snip>
> 
> the history starts and ends with the fact that mr. anderson thinks
> it's a good and right thing to run an open mail relay.  

In fact, I did win the argument (open relays are not anonymous and they
do not enable spam), and the losers did pay my legal fees.  Terranson
was a NANOG'r, BTW. He was fired a while later over another spam issue,
after disclosing all of Savvis's CAN-SPAM-compliant commercial bulk
emailers to Spamhaus in violation of his NDA.  In retrospect, I suppose
Savvis wishes they had fired him in 2002.

> still.  he never joined the rest of us in 1997.  he still lives in the
> early 90s where the people are good and the internet is open.

Well, I do know that people are definitely not good.  Someone said that
if the Board Members were ladies and gentlemen they would resign and run
for re-election in the special meeting that must be called for that
case.  I can tell you from 12 years of experience with NANOG that they
are not "ladies and gentlemen."

On the other hand, I can also tell you that my 19 years as an organizer
with the LPF (founded by Richard Stallman of GNU/Linux fame) has given
me a perspective on how to fight these issues. I am a very patient
person, and I've won just about all of the battles by patience and
careful analysis.

> oh, he also thinks that anycast (the system that provides resiliency
> to the global DNS system, and serves up content from some of the
> largest content providers in the world) won't work and is a scam.

Vixie (who also sells Root Anycast services) and others who sell Root
DNS Anycast Services _ASSERT_WITHOUT_PROOF_ that it provides resiliency
and is stable while silencing dissent about why that isn't true.  
Anycast CAN indeed provide resiliency for STATELESS services, as RFC1546
states.  But in fact, Anycast isn't stable for STATEFUL services, as
RFC1546 ALSO states. It turns out the RFC1546 is exactly right. Getting
the proof that stateful Anycast wasn't stable was hard, but I got it.

Also, the content service (e.g. http) people use stateful load
balancers. That isn't Anycast. Though I did meet an admin (NANOG'r) who
thought an F5 LTM used Anycast because it "effectively gives several
computers the same IP address".  The F5 LTM doesn't use Anycast to do
that.  I don't know how these admin's get such wrong ideas.  After we
discussed the details of Anycast, and the specifications of the F5 LTM,
he was convinced that the F5 LTM doesn't do Anycast.


		--Dean



-- 
Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net         faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000