This was posted to the NANOG mailing list sometime in 2004 by Alex Bligh -- it remains true....
This argument (at least on NANOG) seems to be characterized by the following
1. A suggests X, where X is a member of S, being a set of largely well known
2. B1 ... Bn, where n>>1 says X is without value as X does not solve
the entire problem, each using a different definition of "problem".
3. C1 ... Cn, where n>>1 says X violates a "fundamental principle of
the internet" (in general without quoting chapter & verse as to
its definition, or noting that for its entire history, fundamental
principles, such as they exist, have often been in conflict, for
instance "end-to-end connectivity", and "taking responsibility for
ones own network" in the context of (for instance) packets sourced
from 127.0.0.1 etc.)
4. D1 .. Dn, where n>>1 says X will put an enormous burden on some
network operators and/or inconvenience users (normally without
reference to the burden/inconvenience from the problem itself,
albeit asymmetrically distributed, and normally without reference
to the extent or otherwise that similar problems have been
solved in a pragmatic manner before - viz route filtering, bogon
5. E1 .. En, where n>>1 insert irrelevant and ill-argued invective6. Goto 1.
thus obscuring any new points in 1..4 above.