Bart Schaefer wrote:
On Apr 3, 9:00am, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
}
} To look at it another way (oh good grief!): their enjoyment of access
} to the well for some period of time, at the pleasure of its owner,
} was a positive for them. With the cut-off, that positive no longer exists.
} That does NOT result in a negative: it's merely the cessation of
} a positive, returning the balance to zero.
}
} No negative, no damage.
Sorry, but this is not a zero-sum game, and you can't have it both ways.
The whole Internet is built on cooperative access to resources. By your
argument, no one was damaged when that Pakistani ISP null-routed half
the planet to block access to YouTube, because no one should have
expected to have access to the Ineternet in the first place.
They had the perfect right to place the null routes on their border,
problem was due to technical issues people who didn't want it on their
border received the update and were denied access to an otherwise wanted
result, by someone not authorised to do that.
The 'by someone not authorised' is the key.
/ Mat
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg