[32395] in North American Network Operators' Group
"...the IPv4 TOS field should be end-to-end...."
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (JIM FLEMING)
Tue Nov 21 00:40:50 2000
Message-ID: <068d01c0537c$95e2e920$df00a8c0@ValuedSonyCustomer>
From: "JIM FLEMING" <jfleming@anet.com>
To: "Roeland Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>,
"'Shawn McMahon'" <smcmahon@eiv.com>, <nanog@merit.edu>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 23:33:30 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
In my opinion, the IPv4 TOS field should be end-to-end....
...clients should set it....routers should leave it alone....
Jim Fleming
http://www.unir.com/images/architech.gif
http://www.unir.com/images/address.gif
http://www.unir.com/images/headers.gif
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/sdks/platform/tpipv6/start.asp
----- Original Message -----
From: Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>
To: 'Shawn McMahon' <smcmahon@eiv.com>; <nanog@merit.edu>
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2000 11:29 PM
Subject: RE: ISPs as content-police or method-police
>
> Please reference any suit regarding breach of contract. Examples abound.
> Port filtering may be construed as a material breach when the expectation
> is, that there is to be no port filtering. Access is access, even when the
> customer doesn't know that they are being restricted in their access. That
> just assures you that they will go ballistic when they find out.
>
> Face it guys, you KNOW that this is basically dishonest. As such, it is
> indefensible. I would almost bet <amount> that none of the transit
providers
> mentions restrictions, on access, in their contracts. I would almost bet
> <1/2 amount> that NONE of the access providers mention same in THEIR
> contracts. The general expectation is for clear and open pipes. Put such
> restiction into your contracts and you will lose customers. Don't put them
> in and start filtering anyway and you will lose court cases...big ones.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Shawn McMahon [mailto:smcmahon@eiv.com]
> > Sent: Monday, November 20, 2000 7:21 PM
> > To: nanog@merit.edu
> > Subject: Re: ISPs as content-police or method-police
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 12:03:57PM -0500, Christian Kuhtz wrote:
> > >
> > > What doesn't make sense in that argument is why you
> > couldn't just simply
> > > upsell the customer to a managed fw solution etc if that's
> > the concern.
> > > Educate them, and let them decide based on the education
> > they received.
> >
> > Because it doesn't just affect them; it affects you, your customers,
> > and your business.
> >
> > > I wouldn't be so sure, particularly because of the legal exposure...
> >
> > Does anybody have a live example of this supposed legal exposure, to
> > counter all the many examples those of us who don't believe in it have
> > given?
> >
> >
>
>
