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

[Nick @ Deltaband]

I've only ever seen something like this once before.

After the injunction was filed that prevented the defendant from carrying on
the action that was harming the plaintiffs business, a civil case was
launched against the defendant. The defendant counter sued for the monies
outstanding in the dispute that started the whole issue.

It went to court and the judge through a pretty heavy damages judgement at
the defendant that not only included the direct loss of revenues lost by the
plaintiff, but future losses the plaintiff may experience from the action
that had been taken. The court took a very dim view of the process the
defendant had followed and said words to the effect of; there is a way to go
about resolving billing disputes - commercial sabotage wasn't it.

I'm not saying the circumstances of this scenario are the same, but they
sounds pretty similar.

On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 5:40 PM, Karl Kloppenborg <karl at karltec.net> wrote:

> All I have to say is:
>
> Come on Curtis, show us the proof where it stated in the contracts that
> AINS had the right to take control of resource allocations / objects and
> properties?
>
> If you can provide a signed agreement (with permission of all parties) that
> states this, I think all of us here will have nothing to say other than how
> wrong you guys are for doing route poisoning.
>
> Either way, what you guys are doing is plain as day wrong, its pure child's
> play.
>
> Commercial crap aside (I am interested purely in the technical aspects of
> this)
> Last time I checked, BGP (Global Tables)  was something that commercial
> entities were not permitted to manipulate for gain or malicious activities?
>
> In other words, if your "CFO" / "CEO" / "Accounts and Billing" whatever
> dept told you to do this, is it not within your right to say "Hey guys, we
> can't do this, route poisoning is just wrong, you can't do it." ?
>
> I am not really all up with legalities or anything else commercially, but I
> still think you should jump on and reverse your crap.
>
> (Just my 2c)
>
>
> Loose cannons aren't meant to be trusted, that is all.
>
>
>
> *Cheers!
> Karl Kloppenborg*
> *
> Please consider the environment before printing this email. Think before
> you print.
>
> *
> *[Disclaimer]: Unless otherwise expressed, my views / comments and
> thoughts on AusNOG have no relation to my employment or employers and are
> not the same views / comments or thoughts that they may have.*
> *
> *
> *
> *
> On 12/12/2010, at 16:39, Karl Auer wrote:
>
> On Sun, 2010-12-12 at 15:11 +1100, Kurt Bales wrote:
>
> We have spoken with the management team at Alumina who have been
>
> unable to find a contract that gave permission [...]
>
>
> 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. It
> might even be wise to list the most important ones...
>
> Regards, K.
>
> --
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Karl Auer (kauer at biplane.com.au)                   +61-2-64957160 (h)
> http://www.biplane.com.au/kauer/                   +61-428-957160 (mob)
>
> GPG fingerprint: DA41 51B1 1481 16E1 F7E2 B2E9 3007 14ED 5736 F687
> Old fingerprint: B386 7819 B227 2961 8301 C5A9 2EBC 754B CD97 0156
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20101212/21ec658f/attachment.html>