[32398] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: "...the IPv4 TOS field should be end-to-end...."
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Bora Akyol)
Tue Nov 21 01:07:24 2000
Message-ID: <000901c05381$09210760$0200000a@DL100779>
From: "Bora Akyol" <akyol@akyol.org>
To: <nanog@merit.edu>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 22:05:17 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Jim
An exception to this is Diffserv.
This issue was discussed at length in the diffserv WG and decided Diffserv
DSCP remarking does not really violate this.
Bora
----- Original Message -----
From: "JIM FLEMING" <jfleming@anet.com>
To: "Roeland Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>; "'Shawn McMahon'" <smcmahon@eiv.com>;
<nanog@merit.edu>
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2000 9:33 PM
Subject: "...the IPv4 TOS field should be end-to-end...."
>
> 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?
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
