|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Customers Didn't Know
> On Mon, 12 Feb 1996, mike wrote: > > > Shouldn't we here see how we get our act together, e.g. peering (why in > > this community are there people not peering, putting up 'rules' etc, when > > peering would just make everyone happy since the routing landscape is way > > simpler when there are lots of direct links), and of course, the same > > always: instead of creating unnecessary friction to put into the address > > allocation mechanism a measure to satisfy building up ISP/NSP businesses. > > I agree that there might some people need more restrictive routing, but > > restrictions must always be implemented in a way not to create injustice > > or even only extra problems. > > Well, the prefix-filtering policies of the unnamed ISP you mention above > is definitely a problem. However, I don't see it as a problem for me, > because most ISP's are sensible enough to route that kind of traffic. > > I look at it as a problem for customers who use that unnamed ISP. Those > customers should contact their providers and pressure them to get > alternative links (or, in the case they are a direct customer of this unnamed > ISP, change to another provider or obtain another link and become > multi-homed). > > I think that right now, we shouldn't be too concerned with "CIDRize or > DIE!". At this point, we should be helping other entities out--you're > not FORCING them to renumber by making their networks non-routable > within one organization--you're screwing your customers out of optimal > connectivity to any particular site. > > The Internet has gotten too much away from the original purpose, to share > information. It has gone to a vast commercial marketing symbol, where > most companies really don't care about other entities--"Why should we > help this group? They're customers of ISP X!" > > Now, if there's a sincere need to filter, say, because you still use > AGS+'s with CSC/3's and 16 MB of RAM and your poor 1988-age equipment > can't handle it, then fine... > > /cah > > I agree. Internet should belong to everyone. However, I felt pity to those still using that ISP X as their Internet access provider. At the last Comnet Conference at Washington DC (1/30-2/1), I happened to run into a few exhibitors at the floor who were customers to this ISP X. To my surprise, none of them were aware of the fact that they were restricted to reach out potential customers who insist on using their own long prefix IP address. They all expressed serious concern of such limitation and felt angery at the arbitrary restriction by their service supplier. I think ISP X is going to have some explanation to do. ISP X definitely cannot claim itself offering universal connectivity in the Internet world. Its customers cannot reach out and touch anyone they wish. There is potential legal liability due to loss of business opportunity if the customer can establish misrepresentation by ISP X, or perhaps show gross disregard of negligence as compared to the industrial standard. Afterall, ISP X is the only one departing from the industrial norm. I get the feeling that all this matter can be resolved simply by someone informing the customers of ISP X's unilateral practice decision which resulted in their accessibility limitation. Who knows, may be all ISP's other than ISP X will benefit from the windfall of the exodus customers who felt being cheated for the service they've contracted. Better yet, I think ISP X is creating seed for a class action suit. SC
|