[32427] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Does AT&T provide IPv4HT ?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Daniel Golding)
Tue Nov 21 16:05:22 2000
From: "Daniel Golding" <dan@netrail.net>
To: "JIM FLEMING" <jfleming@anet.com>, <klensin@jck.com>,
<mcade@att.com>, "Bellovin,Steven M (Steve) - ALRES" <smb@att.com>
Cc: <nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 15:04:51 -0500
Message-ID: <FHEBKELAPEKHCBCFIEBBKEFICAAA.dan@netrail.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <0c4c01c053f1$29082fc0$df00a8c0@ValuedSonyCustomer>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
All together now... "No one cares, Jim".
- Dan Golding
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of
JIM FLEMING
Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2000 2:28 PM
To: klensin@jck.com; mcade@att.com; Bellovin,Steven M (Steve) - ALRES
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Does AT&T provide IPv4HT ?
Does AT&T provide, "end-to-end" IPv4 IP Header Transport ?
....with the TOS field untouched ?
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: Stephen Sprunk <ssprunk@cisco.com>
To: Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>; 'Shawn McMahon' <smcmahon@eiv.com>;
<nanog@merit.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2000 1:16 PM
Subject: Re: ISPs as content-police or method-police
>
> Thus spake "Roeland Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>
> >
> > 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.
>
> If filtering is in the contract, it's hardly breach of contract to
> perform it.
>
> > 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.
>
> AT&T, I believe, was the first major provider to start filtering port
> 25; here's the relevant part of their contract:
>
> http://www.att.net/general-info/terms.html
> "AT&T reserves the right to block, filter or delete Unsolicited
> E-Mails."
>
> While it doesn't explicitly state how they intend to "block, filter or
> delete" spam, filtering port 25 by default can be reasonably construed
> to fit that definition, and is therefore within the contract.
>
> Ths is also promising:
> "don't send materials that contain viruses, worms, or any other
> destructive elements; ... You may not use or attempt to use the Service
> to violate its security or the security of systems accessible through
> it, ... you should secure your computer equipment so that only
> authorized users can gain access to your Service account."
>
> You could claim that these sections authorize blocking of QAZ et al,
> since the activity of worms is prohibited. Also, customers are required
> to secure their computers to prevent intrusion, so leaving any blatantly
> insecure protocol like SMB enabled might be breach of contract.
> Wholesale blocking of SMB might even be allowed.
>
> Of course, I wouldn't want to use that logic in court, but a good lawyer
> could probably pull it off. I'd prefer to insert more specific wording
> into the contract first.
>
> > The general expectation is for clear and open pipes. Put such
> restiction
> > into your contracts and you will lose customers.
>
> As long as a user can request the filters be removed (as in AT&T's
> case), I doubt anyone will lose customers. In fact, I've seen many ads
> for ISPs which promote their filtering service with the belief that it
> will bring them more customers.
>
> > Don't put them in and start filtering anyway and you will lose
> > court cases...big ones.
>
> If an ISP refuses to turn off unrequested filters, and the filters
> aren't in the contract, I can see a lawsuit. I can also see the
> customer simply taking their business elsewhere and persuing the matter
> through the press. As AGIS proved, that turned out to be far more
> effective than courts.
>
> Then again, nobody here seems to be suggesting mandatory filtering. Why
> is there such a strong objection to opt-out filters, where a single call
> or email can get the filters turned off? Is using a phone really that
> difficult?
>
> S
>
> | | Stephen Sprunk, K5SSS, CCIE #3723
> :|: :|: Network Design Consultant, GSOLE
> :|||: :|||: New office: RCDN2 in Richardson, TX
> .:|||||||:..:|||||||:. Email: ssprunk@cisco.com
>
>
>
>
