[187791] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Thank you, Comcast.
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (James Downs)
Fri Feb 26 10:33:08 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: James Downs <egon@egon.cc>
In-Reply-To: <df93d62ef8e6cb4db2e0fd81f856cac1@mail.dessus.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 07:32:13 -0800
To: Keith Medcalf <kmedcalf@dessus.com>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
> On Feb 26, 2016, at 06:31, Keith Medcalf <kmedcalf@dessus.com> wrote:
>=20
> ISP's should block nothing, to or from the customer, unless they make =
it clear *before* selling the service (and include it in the Terms and =
Conditions of Service Contract), that they are not selling an Internet =
connection but are selling a partially functional Internet connection =
(or a limited Internet Service), and specifying exactly what the =
built-in deficiencies are.
Absolutely. It=E2=80=99s funny that a group that worries about about net =
neutrality and whinges about T-Mobile=E2=80=99s zero-rating certain =
video sources is perfectly fine with blindly blocking *ports*, without =
even understanding if it=E2=80=99s legitimate traffic.
> Deficiencies may include:
> port/protocol blockage toward the customer (destination blocks)
> port/protocol blockage toward the internet (source blocks)
> DNS diddling (filtering of responses, NXDOMAIN redirection/wildcards, =
etc)
This would be a big reason to point to a different DNS...
> Traffic Shaping/Policing/Congestion policies, inbound and outbound
>=20
> Some ISPs are good at this and provide opt-in/out methods for at least =
the first three on the list. Others not so much.
