[108945] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: routing around Sprint's depeering damage
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_Lindb=E4ck?=)
Sun Nov 2 10:53:31 2008
In-Reply-To: <200811021539.mA2FdFxu085495@aurora.sol.net>
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_Lindb=E4ck?= <list-only@dnz.se>
Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2008 16:52:33 +0100
To: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Nice interpretation of my statement..
A reasonable effort and a contractual guarantee are two different =20
things, a reasonable effort could be defined as economicly feasable =20
for instance.
My point was that in Cogents case this is really a force majeure =20
situation and in Sprints case unless you have a contract that defines =20=
an SLA with delivery to "the entire Internet" or something similar =20
you do not really have case to break your contract or sue due to the =20
de-peering as a breach of contract from Sprints side..
------------------------------
Anders Lindb=E4ck
anders.lindback@dnz.se
On 2 nov 2008, at 16.39, Joe Greco wrote:
>> Well, selling you an "unlimited" account and them terminating that
>> contract if you use "to much" is one thing, that is a stated lack of
>> a limit in your contract.
>>
>> There is no delivery guarantee of your IP packets in your contract,
>> adding one would be a rather bad idea since there is no delivery
>> guarantee in IP that your service is based on and that would open a
>> carrier to liabilities if someone was using a firewall for instance
>> since that is effectivly limiting your delivery to that machine.
>>
>> What you are buying is access to Sprints network, and transit
>> effectivly on Sprints view of the Internet, and that is what they
>> deliver really..
>
> Based on that logic, it sounds like a fine time for me to get into the
> wireless market. I can save a ton of money by getting a 56k dialup =20=
> line
> to $9.95/mo-company as an upstream connection, and just saying that I
> don't guarantee delivery of packets, and if my upstream service gets
> terminated for some reason, hey, my view of the Internet is pretty =20
> small.
>
> Come on. Really, an ISP has to make a reasonable effort to be able to
> reach other arbitrary destinations on the Internet. That they =20
> might not
> be able to promise access to obscure networks in the farthest portions
> of China on the end of two tin cans and a string is obvious. But when
> they can't get traffic across the street because they're actively
> buggering routes from an AS, well, that's different.
>
> ... JG
> --=20
> Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://=20
> www.sol.net
> "We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance =20
> [and] then I
> won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-=20
> mail spam(CNN)
> With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too =20
> many apples.
