[64711] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: more on filtering
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Dave Howe)
Fri Oct 31 11:16:47 2003
From: "Dave Howe" <DaveHowe@gmx.co.uk>
To: "Email List: nanog" <nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 16:13:01 -0000
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
daryl@introspect.net wrote:
>> I don't see how that is the same thing here. I have an
>> agreement with cust X to provide services in accordance with
>> my AUP. cust X resells that service to cust Y, etc. cust Y
>> is bound to the terms and conditions of my agreement with
>> cust X, despite that I do not have a direct agreement with cust Y.
> Oh christ...network engineers trying to be lawyers.
>
> I don't know much, but I do know that legal agreements in the US are
> NOT transitive in this way, unless each agreement is included by
> reference in the other.
They aren't legally, but they are effectively.
If X must abide by your AUP, then any traffic they forward for Y must also
abide by your AUP (or whatever penalties are in your contract with X will
kick in) - it doesn't matter what X's contract with Y says, as your
contract is with X and any penalties are to be applied to X; It is
therefore in X's best interest to insist Y abides by the AUP or
indemnifies X for any penalties, and/or negotiates with you to make sure
only Y's traffic is cut off on breach of the AUP by Y, rather than all
traffic from X.
