North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: BBN/GTEI
On Sat, Aug 22, 1998 at 07:13:22AM -0700, Michael Dillon wrote: > > Pray someone doesn't write a call-back protocol, so traffic flows in > > the opposite direction from the original initiator of the IP 'transaction'. > > FTP already does this. Nevertheless, the largest number of bytes still > flows in the same direction as it would with HTTP. I think you are > agreeing with me that the initiator of the transaction is irrelevant. Michael, you've always struck me as one of the saner inhabitants of this list -- which I guess really translates as "you and I almost always have the same outlook on things" :-) -- but this must be where we part company. In the current context, which I would translate as "who is responsible for the bytes moving over a link -- and therefore ought to pay for it", it's pretty obvious to _me_ that if Exodus' customers are sending data to GTEI's customers _because the latter requested it_, then Exodus ought not, in equity, to be considered "responsible" for that data; they were just doing as asked. > I would go further and say that the customers of the peers and their actions > are also irrelevant to the peering relationship. On this, hoewver, I agree. The real breakage here is GETI attempting to redefine "peering". The net got where it is today as a "non-settlement" network. Any plan to change that would have to be documented in about 50 pages for me to buy it. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth [email protected] Member of the Technical Staff Unsolicited Commercial Emailers Sued The Suncoast Freenet "Two words: Darth Doogie." -- Jason Colby, Tampa Bay, Florida on alt.fan.heinlein +1 813 790 7592 Managing Editor, Top Of The Key sports e-zine ------------ http://www.totk.com
|