|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Digex transparent proxying
At 11:40 AM 6/28/98 -0500, Jeremy Porter wrote: [SNIP] >There is fundenmentally little difference between class of service >and transparent caching. I find that statement false-to-fact. There is a very fundamental difference. One implies that at least an attempt (however low priority that attempt is) will be made to deliver all packets to their *destination*. The other implies that absolutely no attempt will be made to reach the desired destination in some instances. You honestly do not see a *fundamental* difference here? I notice you still have completely avoided answering my question. "Class of service" is usually negotiated at the time of the contract being signed. DIGEX has made a *fundamental* change to the service they are providing their customers with little or no attempt to fully disclose this change in service to their paying customers. (IMHO, that e-mail posted to NANOG was a bad attempt at CYA, not a notification to their customers. They probably plan to point at that e-mail if they ever get hauled into court. I hope it proves as useless to DIGEX in court as it did to their downstreams in troubleshooting problems.) Once again I put the question: Is there ONE PERSON on this list who can justify this type of behavior? Even someone from DIGEX? And before anyone goes off once again about how great caching is, I will once again publicly state that I am not at all opposed to caching - even forced caching of customers. It's your network, do as you please. But at the risk of sounding like I am "morally grandstanding", I simply believe you should TELL YOUR CUSTOMERS before you do something like this. Is that really too much to expect? Jeremy, you don't think it's unreasonable for people to follow Best Practices documents. Would you find it unreasonable for people to disclose these types of *fundamental* changes on their network to their customers as "best practices"? >While I think Digex's move may be a little unusal, I would find >it difficult to believe there is anything contractual or legal that >prevents it. Others have disagreed with you. I would have to see DIGEX's contract to be sure myself. [SNIP] >It seems like a lot of moral grandstanding to me, but I guess I should >be used to that. I would have expected better from most Nanog people >to use this as some sort of "My company is more ethical than your company >forum". The average reader of Nanog is perfectly capable of judging >this for themselvs. Heh. Now who's grandstanding? As for the average NANOG reader, I would have to agree with you that they are capable of thinking for themselves. And they've probably have already made up their minds without reading this thread. Which is why I've asked them to give me some input. Lots of people here have thought about this a lot more than I have, perhaps they would care to share their thoughts about this issue? >Jeremy Porter, Freeside Communications, Inc. [email protected] TTFN, patrick ************************************************************** Patrick W. Gilmore voice: +1-650-482-2840 Director of Operations, CCIE #2983 fax: +1-650-482-2844 PRIORI NETWORKS, INC. http://www.priori.net "Tomorrow's Performance.... Today" **************************************************************
|