[37813] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Stealth Blocking
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Roeland Meyer)
Thu May 24 15:04:12 2001
Message-ID: <9DC8BBAD4FF100408FC7D18D1F0922860E4680@condor.mhsc.com>
From: Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>
To: "'Eric A. Hall'" <ehall@ehsco.com>,
Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>
Cc: Dave Rand <dlr@bungi.com>, nanog@merit.edu
Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 11:12:44 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
> From: Eric A. Hall [mailto:ehall@ehsco.com]
> Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2001 11:03 AM
>
> > > The negative side effect is that it cripples people who use email
> > > as a file transfer protocol.
> >
> > Which I do, quite extensively. Transit providers shouldn't be doing
> > this.
>
> I agree. Access providers should be, however.
That depends on your definition of access provider. I would be livid, were
my upstream to do such traffic shaping on my feed. We would also be in court
for breach of contract. I buy bandwidth and IP space. I expect to get what I
pay for. I don't pay to have my traffic restricted by other than my pipe
size.
