[AusNOG] Urgent - Pacnet NOC contact (with BGP clue)

Karl Kloppenborg karl at karltec.net
Sun Dec 12 22:00:11 EST 2010


[rage]
Hi Cee,

I stated that with permission of all parties, I would not condone nor want any party to disclose information without the strictest of permission of the other parties.

Also, regarding my statement at the bottom of my header, that was in all seriousness a quote generator that I used to run on my old machine (which I am using at the moment due to my MBP having a cry and spazzing on me) 

I do apologise for that coincidental but possibly very badly looked upon mistake, I have since removed it from my mail client.

However, Cee I will certainly draw on your points below:

1) Lets look at the creditability of the thread creator. Correct me if I am wrong Skeeve but is the below not you?

- Digging up old history on someones mistakes is even lower than the content that has been looming around AusNOG the last two days, thanks for hitting the new level of lows, yes many of us would be aware of skeeve's history but I can certainly (and many more could back me on this claim) say that skeeve is a very credible person who is in upmost a very trustable source for a straight and honest answer.
- Shooting on someones credibility only shows how mature you are to script such a post.
- I could have easily thrown in comments about Curtis Raam's credibility in running Koala Telecom but like I said, I do not draw on the past to back current situations and neither should you.

2) Interesting to say the least. Like Karl said "Loose cannons aren't meant to be trusted"

- Do not use my text and draw it into your own to fuel the flames your making... childish.... and as I stated above it was mealy due to the old mac I am using at the moment from two years back.

3) With regards to respectable companies like PACNET. Why drag them into this when clearly you Skeeve stated that this was related to a "billing dispute".

- Yes this is a billing dispute, well it used to be just a billing dispute... route poisoning is not a billing dispute?
- Skeeve is here trying to seek help and awareness because a network is down due to malicious circumstances that he happens to manage, this entered AusNOG when it went from Billing Dispute to Denial of Service, so come on tell me I am wrong? is this not a Denial of Service, have I been mis-informed all along about what route poisoning can do, what it's repercussions could be?

As for respectable companies:
- Respectable companies are companies that adhere and follow the rules, I do hold a lot of respect for PACNET, but I do agree.. them sitting along and allowing this is wrong, its within everyone as an industry body hell even a internet community embodying the world to make sure the internets core foundations are looked after in a neutral manner, that being said route poisoning should be looked and acted upon by everyone who can help get rid of it.

4) I'd have to agree with you on this. Contracts should be read... Is this not why we have those wonderful people who are called lawyers, who enjoy there exorbitant fees.

 - Yes I also agree with Karl, However regardless of whether it was overlooked or someone did a bit of foul play... what ever the case maybe, its still unethical and just plain wrong, you can't deny that.

5) I would of thought this would not be possible as most respectable organisations would of had a Non-Disclosure Agreement in place.

-  As stated above I did say if all parties agreed....

6) I wouldn't be suggesting such drastic actions especially seeing as the last time Skeeve took revenge against a company it gave him 18 months in the slammer.

- I think most of us on the list (at least I can speak for myself) said this purely in a joking sense, no one here would do that, it just stoops us down to the level AINS has potentially gone.

7) In closing, leave your dirty laundry out of AusNOG. Why bring the content within these mailing list to such a level that I would expect from juviniles.

Well it seems that so some its dirty laundry, to others this topic provides information that can greatly be valued for future reference and if something shall unfortunately happen to them then at least they can go: "oh skeeve contact those people to talk to about this, I should give them a ring"

- As for juvenile well, I think you joined the club with your last post, so welcome aboard, posting references like that is juvenile.. 
- Some of us on here (including myself) might be a little juvenile but we all have a point to share and hell... where in the charter did it say "Hey you must be of this level of maturity to ride the merry go round", because if it did then your last post outlining Skeeve's history would most certainly been banned.


Btw, dirty laundry you say? http://www.myspace.com/video/vid/23268449


[Disclaimer: I am not affiliated with Skeeve in any way, nor do my points express his or anyone else's thoughts, these words are my own and only reflect my views]

[/rage]



Cheers!
Karl Kloppenborg




On 12/12/2010, at 20:54, Cee Four wrote:

> Skeeves and AusNOG members,
> 
> Before naming names we should all look at the possibility of resolving disputes through the judicial system rather then vilification on a public mailing list.
> 
> AusNOG from what I understood was a respected community containing professionals from the IT Industry, now it seems that this is thrown out the window for more of a "Fight club" style of dirty punches.
> 
> Seeing as the current participants in this thread want more information lets put some more on the table;
> 
> Lets look at the creditability of the thread creator. Correct me if I am wrong Skeeve but is the below not you?
> 
> http://www.afp.gov.au/media-centre/publications/platypus/previous-editions/1998/june-1998/computer.aspx
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CTOF-QX2Pw
> http://www.phrack.org/issues.html?issue=53&id=14
> 
> "A computer hacker who tried to destroy an Internet company that refused to hire him was jailed for 18 months today for offences that include 
> publishing customer credit card numbers."
> 
> Interesting to say the least. Like Karl said "Loose cannons aren't meant to be trusted"
> 
> With regards to respectable companies like PACNET. Why drag them into this when clearly you Skeeve stated that this was related to a "billing dispute".
> 
> @Scott Howard - "How much more is there to this story that you haven't passed on?"
> 
> Obviously a lot. 
> 
> @Karl Auer - "There is a lesson in this for all of us: When arranging contracts,
> ensure that network resources that are the property of or under the
> administrative control of your company (as distinct from under the
> operational control of your company) are specifically excluded from any
> actions the other party is permitted to take in case of dispute."
> 
> I'd have to agree with you on this. Contracts should be read... Is this not why we have those wonderful people who are called lawyers, who enjoy there exorbitant fees.
> 
> @ Karl Kloppenborg - "show us the proof where it stated in the contracts that AINS had the right to take control of resource allocations / objects and properties"
> 
> I would of thought this would not be possible as most respectable organisations would of had a Non-Disclosure Agreement in place.
> 
> @ Marcus Emanuel - "Just announce the AINS's entire list of BGP routes to your IP transit provider" 
> 
> I wouldn't be suggesting such drastic actions especially seeing as the last time Skeeve took revenge against a company it gave him 18 months in the slammer.
> 
> In closing, leave your dirty laundry out of AusNOG. Why bring the content within these mailing list to such a level that I would expect from juviniles.
> 
> -C4 ( just my 2c )
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20101212/da11d3c4/attachment.html>


More information about the AusNOG mailing list