[61385] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Fun new policy at AOL
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Clayton Fiske)
Thu Aug 28 12:55:30 2003
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 09:48:47 -0700
From: Clayton Fiske <clay@bloomcounty.org>
To: nanog@merit.edu
Mail-Followup-To: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <4236FCAF-D971-11D7-828E-000A956885D4@crocker.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 12:04:09PM -0400, Matthew Crocker wrote:
> Technically no, There is no reason for a customer to have direct
> access to the net so long as the ISP can provide appropriate proxies
> for the services required.
> It gets complex, it gets hard to manage but it can be done. There is a
> stigma against proxing because of the early days when stale content was
> all over the place. Does a dynamically assigned dialup/DSL user even
> need a valid routable IP? For games? Maybe games should be more NAT
> friendly.
>
> We do remove the filters for customers that have a valid need and show
> that they have a clue out it all works.
There is a perfectly good reason for direct access: We buy IP
connectivity. We don't buy {list of specific applications} connectivity.
If I create a new network application, how many ISPs are going to sit
there and create a new proxy so it will work? Even on the outside chance
that I could talk my own ISP into it since I pay them, it's not going to
be a very useful app if one of the prerequisites is "must be a customer
of ISP X".
-c
